Skip to main content

Identifying Objectives and Alternative Actions to Frame a Decision Problem

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Application of Threshold Concepts in Natural Resource Decision Making

Abstract

In this chapter, we discuss the role of objectives and alternative actions in framing a natural resource management decision problem, with particular attention to thresholds. We outline a number of considerations in developing objectives and measurable attributes, including when utility thresholds may be needed to express the decision-makers’ values. We also discuss the development of a set of alternative actions, and how these might give rise to decision thresholds, particularly when the predictive models contain ecological thresholds. Framing of a decision problem plays a central role in decision analysis because it helps determine the needs for a predictive ecological model, the type of solution method required, and the value and structure of a monitoring system.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Bedford, T., and R. Cooke. 2001. Probabilistic risk analysis. Foundations and methods. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bond, S. D., K. A. Carlson, and R. L. Keeney. 2008. Generating objectives: Can decision makers articulate what they want? Management Science 54:56–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Failing, L., R. Gregory, and M. Harstone. 2007. Integrating science and local knowledge in environmental risk management: A decision-focused approach. Ecological Economics 64:47–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hajkowicz, S. A., G. T. McDonald, and P. N. Smith. 2000. An evaluation of multiple objective decision support weighting techniques in natural resource management. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 43:505–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howard, R. A. 1966. Decision analysis: Applied decision theory. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Operational Research, ed. D. B. Hertz and J. Melese, 55–71. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeney, R. L. 1996. Value-focused thinking: Identifying decision opportunities and creating alternatives. European Journal of Operational Research 92:537–549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keeney, R. L. 2002. Common mistakes in making value trade-offs. Operations Research 50:935–945.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keeney, R. L. 2007. Developing objectives and attributes. In Advances in decision analysis. From foundations to applications, ed. W. Edwards, R. F. Miles Jr., and D. von Winterdfeldt. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeney, R. L., and R. S. Gregory. 2005. Selecting attributes to measure achievement of objectives. Operations Research 53:1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montibeller, G., V. Belton, F. Ackermann, and L. Ensslin. 2008. Reasoning maps for decision aid: An integrated approach for problem-structuring and multi-criteria evaluation. Journal of the Operational Research Society 59:575–589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, D. 1999. Introduction to decision analysis. 2nd ed. Gainesville: Probabilistic Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steele, K., Y. Carmel, J. Cross, and C. Wilcox. 2009. Uses and misuses of multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) in environmental decision-making. Risk Analysis 29:26–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, T. J., and F. B. Losa. 2003. Towards reconciling outranking and value measurement practice. European Journal of Operational Research 145:645–659.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2010. Adaptive harvest management: 2010 hunting season. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Interior.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vincke, P. 1992. Multicriteria decision-aid. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Neumann, J. and O. Morgenstern. 1944. Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael C. Runge .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Runge, M., Walshe, T. (2014). Identifying Objectives and Alternative Actions to Frame a Decision Problem. In: Guntenspergen, G. (eds) Application of Threshold Concepts in Natural Resource Decision Making. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-8041-0_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics