No abstract

The foundation for any decision is a clear statement of objectives. Attributes clarify the meaning of each objective and are required to measure the consequences of different alternatives. Unfortunately, insufficient thought typically is given to the choice of attributes. This paper addresses this problem by presenting theory and guidelines for identifying appropriate attributes. We define five desirable properties of attributes: they should be unambiguous, comprehensive, direct, operational, and understandable. Each of these properties is discussed and illustrated with examples, including several cases in which one or more of the desirable properties are not met. We also present a decision model for selecting among the different types of natural, proxy, and constructed attributes.

This paper explores the need for a broader and more inclusive approach to decisions about land and resources, one that recognizes the legitimacy of cultural values and traditional knowledge in environmental decision making and policy. Invisible losses are those not widely recognized or accounted for in decisions about resource planning and decision making in resource-and land-use negotiations precisely because they involve considerations that tend to be ignored by managers and scientists or because they are often indirect or cumulative, resulting from a complex, often cumulative series of events, decisions, choices, or policies. First Nations communities in western North America have experienced many such losses that, together, have resulted in a decline in the overall resilience of individuals and communities. We have identified eight types invisible losses that are often overlapping and cumulative: cultural/lifestyle losses, loss of identity, health losses, loss of self-determination and influence, emotional and psychological losses, loss of order in the world, knowledge losses, and indirect economic losses and lost opportunities. To render such invisible losses more transparent, which represents the first step in developing a more positive and equitable basis for decision making and negotiations around land and resources, we recommend six processes: focusing on what matters to the people affected, describing what matters in meaningful ways, making a place for these concerns in decision making, evaluating future losses and gains from a historical baseline, recognizing culturally derived values as relevant, and creating better alternatives for decision making so that invisible losses will be diminished or eliminated in the future.

Abstract. The concept of adaptive management has, for many ecologists, become a foundation of effective environmental management for initiatives characterized by high levels of ecological uncertainty. Yet problems associated with its application are legendary, and many of the initiatives promoted as examples of adaptive management appear to lack essential characteristics of the approach. In this paper we propose explicit criteria for helping managers and decision makers to determine the appropriateness of either passive or active adaptivemanagement strategies as a response to ecological uncertainty in environmental management. Four categories of criteria-dealing with spatial and temporal scale, dimensions of uncertainty, the evaluation of costs and benefits, and institutional and stakeholder supportare defined and applied using hypothetical yet realistic case-study scenarios that illustrate a range of environmental management problems. We conclude that many of the issues facing adaptive management may have less to do with the approach itself than with the indiscriminate choice of contexts within which it is now applied.

Choices that require multiple stakeholders to balance conflicting objectives are among today's most controversial decisions. Although many techniques exist for helping decision makers to select among projects, little attention has been given to processes for identifying improved alternatives based on clearly articulated stakeholder values. In this paper we describe a general process to inform controversial social decisions by first structuring stakeholder objectives and then using this information to create policy alternatives. We also report the results of a workshop in Sabah, Malaysia which used the proposed approach as the basis for multiple stakeholder negotiations.values, environmental policy, alternatives, stakeholder involvement