Journal on Policy and Complex Systems
meta-decision problem concerns which weighting methodology shall be used to weigh the z x
2 values or a k
≥ 2 alternates . Should the value ( or alternate ) tradeoffs be set up as a zero-sum game with
∑ h = 1
x
w h
. z h = 1 or a positive-sum game with ∑ h = 1 x
w h
. z h
> 1 ? Furthermore , which methodology should be used to ascertain the values of the weights w h for the criteria z h
( where h = 1 ,…, x ) or alternate mixes ( a k
!)? 2.4 . Choice of Decision Rules
Given the multiplicity of decision models and algorithms , policymakers and planners are confronted with the problem of how to choose which descriptive or normative decision rule / algorithm to apply in a given situation . This is called as a meta-decision problem for determining the decision rule set .
Formally , the fourth meta-decision problem concerns which decision rule τ ( decision algorithm , decision method ) shall be used to solve the decision problem ϕ = ( A , f ). Table 1 shows a list of nine descriptive and normative decision algorithms that are frequently used to solve environmental policy or planning design problems . The leading representative authors of each algorithm are also listed in Table 1 . The last column in Table 1 shows the specific situations that arise while applying these decision algorithms that require a meta-decision choice . There is however no meta-algorithm that tells the users when to apply one decision algorithm and when the other .
The choice of a decision algorithm may affect the choice of weights on values and / or alternatives , such as SAW only adds , while the weighted product only multiplies the expected values . There is however not a single meta-decision algorithm that lets the policy / decision makers choose the appropriate decision model for specific design problems .
2.5 . Can Meta-Algorithms Be Devised to Solve Meta-Decision Problems ?
A deeper analysis of the nine descriptive and nine normative decision algorithms represented in Table 1 reveals that the assumption that it is possible to find algorithmic solutions has blocked most decision theorists and planners from addressing truly wicked environmental policy design problems because the real problem of meta-decisions is assumed to be resolved through means that are exogenous to their models ( for more discussion on the limits of algorithms and meta-algorithms , please see Zia , Kauffman , & Niiranen , 2012 ). This theoretical block is pervasive in decision theory because the methodological assumptions for deciding about meta-decisions have not been critically analyzed . The emphasis has rather been on finding an algorithm that provides the best and most optimal decision . Wicked environmental design problems cannot by definition have singular , optimized solutions because exogenous decisions on meta-choices foreclose the real issues and reduce the decision problem to mere application of pre-defined algorithmic decision rules , while in actual policy contexts , these meta-choices make a real difference in each stage of evaluating the policy and
12