Identifying Objectives and Alternative Actions to Frame a Decision Problem



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.


Utility threshold Decision threshold Ecological threshold Decision analysis Means objectives 


  1. Bedford, T., and R. Cooke. 2001. Probabilistic risk analysis. Foundations and methods. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  6. Keeney, R. L. 1996. Value-focused thinking: Identifying decision opportunities and creating alternatives. European Journal of Operational Research 92:537–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Keeney, R. L. 2002. Common mistakes in making value trade-offs. Operations Research 50:935–945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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
  9. Keeney, R. L., and R. S. Gregory. 2005. Selecting attributes to measure achievement of objectives. Operations Research 53:1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Skinner, D. 1999. Introduction to decision analysis. 2nd ed. Gainesville: Probabilistic Publishing.Google Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Stewart, T. J., and F. B. Losa. 2003. Towards reconciling outranking and value measurement practice. European Journal of Operational Research 145:645–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2010. Adaptive harvest management: 2010 hunting season. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Interior.Google Scholar
  15. Vincke, P. 1992. Multicriteria decision-aid. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  16. von Neumann, J. and O. Morgenstern. 1944. Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research CenterLaurelUSA
  2. 2.Australian Centre of Excellence for Risk Analysis, School of BotanyThe University of MelbourneParkvilleAustralia

Personalised recommendations