Structured Decision Making: A Practical Guide to Environmental Management Choices

By R. Gregory, Lee Failing, M. Harstone, G. Long, T. McDaniels, Dan, Ohlson. 2012

943 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Artificial Intelligence, General Decision Sciences, Management Science and Operations Research

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/1721b5b1a0cc2a5c342bcd6dde9d30ec072563a1

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Artificial Intelligence

In General Decision Sciences

In Management Science and Operations Research

Citations in the corpus

Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values (2012, background): “…is theoretically grounded in multi-attribute utility theory butwhohave advanced subjective scaling, whereby the language of local constituents is often the basis for ‘constructing’ scales that render otherwise excluded (often intangible) variables visible and commensurate (Gregory et al., 2011).”
Science, Uncertainty, and Values in Ecological Restoration: A Case Study in Structured Decision‐Making and Adaptive Management (2013, methodology): “Third, the project provides an example of a deliberative approach to trade-off analysis (Gregory et al. 2012).”
Structuring problems for Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis in practice: A literature review of method combinations (2017, methodology): “Other holistic methodologies include: Structured Decision Making (SDM, Gregory et al., 2012) which embeds several tools and practices for supporting a collaborative application of MCDA, combining methods from decision analysis (e.g. MAVT, VFT) and applied ecology with insights from behavioural…”
Achieving the national development agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) through investment in ecological infrastructure: A case study of South Africa (2017, background): “Cross-sectoral and multistakeholder approaches towards environmental stewardship are also important for addressing conflicts and trade-offs in resource use and adapting to climate change impacts (Gregory et al., 2012).”
Climate change effects on biodiversity, ecosystems, ecosystem services, and natural resource management in the United States. (2020, background): “…support tools, including scenario planning (Cobb and Thompson, 2012; Mahmoud et al., 2009; Peterson et al., 2003) and structured decision-making (Gregory et al., 2012) can help decision-makers explore broad scenarios of risk and develop and prioritize actions that account for uncertainty,…”
Benefit relevant indicators: Ecosystem services measures that link ecological and social outcomes (2018, positive): “…methods with both monetized and nonmonetized components to develop a ranking or rating of alternatives with respect to their contributions to stakeholder preferences for ecosystem services (Maguire, 2014; NESP, 2016; Gregory et al., 2012; Department of Communities and Local Government, 2009).”
Six Common Mistakes in Conservation Priority Setting (2013, background): “The field of decision science has provided information and tools to ensure that prioritizations deliver objective, defensible, and ultimately efficient conservation decisions (e.g., Keeney & Raiffa 1993; Gregory et al. 2012).”
Reintroduction objectives, decisions and outcomes: global perspectives from the herpetofauna (2014, background): “…success; (2) identifying potential alternative actions to choose from; (3) making predictions of the outcomes of candidate actions in relation to the stated objectives; (4) evaluating trade-offs and uncertainty; (5) implementing the optimal action and monitoring its results (Gregory et al., 2012).”
A vision for global monitoring of biological invasions (2017, methodology): “We followed an expert elicitation process comprising three stages: preparation, elicitation and synthesis (Gregory et al., 2012).”
Prescriptive Evolution to Conserve and Manage Biodiversity (2014, background): “…science,” can likewise smooth implementation, improving scientific knowledge and conservation outcomes [(Cook et al. 2013, Guisan et al. 2013); for an example of how the content of Table 2 can be placed in such a structured decision-making process (Gregory et al. 2012), see Supplemental Table 1].”
Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis for Health Care Decision Making--An Introduction: Report 1 of the ISPOR MCDA Emerging Good Practices Task Force. (2016, background): “[6] Gregory R, Failing L, Harstone M, et al.”
Predicting species distributions for conservation decisions (2013, background): “Structured decision making (Gregory et al. 2012; Fig.”