Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-wxvwp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T08:08:54.512Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Multiple Objective Decision Making: Generating Techniques or Goal Programming?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 May 2017

Cleve E. Willis and
Robert D. Perlack
Cleve E. Willis
Affiliation:
Food and Resource Economics, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Robert D. Perlack
Affiliation:
Food and Resource Economics, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Get access

Abstract

Two approaches to formal multiple objective decision analysis are described, illustrated and compared. These two approaches, generating techniques and goal programming, are illustrated by the solution of a simple numerical example. This solution combined with some lessons from the field of psychology provide a basis for some judgments on the relative merits of the approaches.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Northeastern Agricultural Economics Council , Volume 9 , Issue 1 , April 1980, pp. 1 - 6
Copyright
Copyright © Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bromley, Daniel W. “Economics and Public Decisions: Roles of the State and Issues in Economic Evaluation.” Journal of Economic Issues, 10(1976): 811–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castle, Emery N. “The Role of the Economist in Natural Resources Policy.” Invited address presented at the Northeastern Agricultural Economics Council Annual Meeting, June 18, 1979(JNAEC, October 1979 forthcoming).Google Scholar
Cohon, J. F. and Marks, D. H. “Multiobjective Screening Models and Water Resource Investment.” Water Resources Research, 9(1973): 826–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coombs, Clyde. A Theory of Data. John Wiley, New York, 1964.Google Scholar
Gehrlein, William V. and Fishburn, Peter C. “Information Overload in Mechanical Processes.” Management Science, 23(1976): 391–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haimes, Y. Y.; Lasdon, L. S.; and Wismer, D. A. “On a Bicriterion Formulation of the Problems of Integrated System Identification and System Optimization.” IEEE Transactions, Volume SMC-1, 1971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keeney, Ralph L. and Raiffa, Howard. Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-offs. John Wiley, New York, 1976.Google Scholar
Luce, R. Duncan. Individual Choice Behavior: A Theoretical Analysis. John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1964.Google Scholar
Miller, George A. “The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on Our Capacity for Processing Information.” Psychological Review, 63(1956): 81–97.10.1037/h0043158CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morse, J. N. “A Theory of Naive Weights.” Paper presented at the Conference on Multiple Criteria Decision-Making, Buffalo, New York, 21–26, August 1977.Google Scholar
Morse, J. N. “Human Choice Theory: Implications for Multicriteria Optimization.” Paper presented at TIMS/ORSA National Meeting, Miami, 1976, (29 pp.).Google Scholar
Scott, Jerome E. and Wright, Peter. “Modeling an Organizational Buyer's Product Evaluation Strategy: Validity and Procedural Considerations.” Journal of Marketing Research, 13(1976): 211–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thurstone, L. L. “A Law of Comparative Judgment.” Psychological Review, 34(1927): 273–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Troutman, C. Michael and Shanteau, James. “Do Consumers Evaluate Products by Adding or Averaging Attribute Information?” Journal of Consumer Research, 3(1976): 101–106.10.1086/208657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, Amos. “Choice by Elimination.” Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 9(1972): 341–367.10.1016/0022-2496(72)90011-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkie, William L. and Weinreich, Rolf P. Effects of the Number and Type of Attributes Included in an Attitude Model: More is Not Better. Working Paper No. 385, Krannert School of Industrial Administration, January 1973.Google Scholar
Willis, Cleve E. and Perlack, Robert D. “A Comparison of Generating Techniques and Goal Programming for Public Investment, Multiple Objective Decision Making.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, February 1980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, Peter. “The Harassed Decision-Maker: Time Pressures, Distractions, and the Use of Evidence.” Journal of Applied Psychology, 59(1974): 555–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeleny, Milan. Linear Multiobjective Programming. Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, No. 95. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1974.Google Scholar