Evidence, Framing, and Planning
Week 4 Monday — Chapter 6
2026-09-14
Building from public-trust thinking
Last week: Public institutions hold responsibilities to current and future beneficiaries.
This week: How do managers use evidence to plan, act, and learn in ways that make those responsibilities visible?
Source: Chapter 6, §§6.1–6.2
The central question
How does a human-dimensions orientation improve an evidence-based management decision?
At the most basic, it broadens both the evidence managers use and the outcomes they seek.
Source: Chapter 6, §§6.1–6.2
Evidence and framing
From a management question to a defensible plan.
A decision needs more than biological evidence
What is happening?
- Biological or ecological conditions
- Technical feasibility
- Legal mandates
What should be done?
- Economic feasibility
- Social values
- Public knowledge and experience
Key point: These evidence sources complement one another; none resolves every management question alone.
Source: Chapter 6, §6.2.1
Evidence answers different parts of the decision
| Evidence type | A question it can help answer |
|---|---|
| Ecological and biological | What condition, risk, or response is occurring? |
| Social and economic | Who is affected, what matters, and what tradeoffs are feasible? |
| Legal and institutional | What authority, duty, or process applies? |
| Local and experiential | What place-based knowledge or implementation concern should shape the plan? |
Source: Chapter 6, §6.2.1.
Four questions organize a decision
Why?
Why manage or conserve this resource?
Who?
Which publics, beneficiaries, and partners are involved?
What?
What impacts or outcomes are desired?
How?
How will the decision be made, carried out, and assessed?
Source: Chapter 6, §6.2
Research and participation have different jobs
Research can describe conditions, relationships, and likely consequences.
Participation can reveal values, concerns, local knowledge, and acceptable tradeoffs.
Meaningful participation is more than a legal requirement. It needs a structured process, capable staff, and genuine integration of input.
Source: Chapter 6, §6.2.1
Evidence-informed does not mean expert-only
Research can reduce uncertainty and test relationships. Participation can clarify values, lived experience, local knowledge, and acceptable tradeoffs.
A defensible process makes both the evidence considered and the role of public input visible.
Source: Chapter 6, §6.2.1.
Plan–Do–Learn is iterative
Learning can revise the action, the objectives, or even the original problem frame.
Source: Chapter 6, §6.3 and Figure 6.1
Structured decision making makes choices inspectable
Structured decision making makes the links explicit among:
- the decision context and problem;
- objectives and measurable outcomes;
- management alternatives; and
- predicted consequences, tradeoffs, and uncertainty.
Source: Chapter 6, §6.3.1.
Planning turns a broad concern into a choice
Clear framing, objectives, alternatives, and measures.
Problem framing shapes the whole cycle
How a problem is framed influences:
- who is involved;
- what evidence is gathered;
- which alternatives are considered; and
- how success is measured.
Different frames can produce different, defensible management choices.
Source: Chapter 6, §§6.3–6.4
A goal gives direction; objectives make it testable
Goal
A broad, desired direction for management.
Objective
A specific, measurable statement of what the plan intends to achieve.
Source: Chapter 6, §6.3.2.1.
Objectives, actions, and measures are not interchangeable
Objective
The desired change.
Example: Improve access.
Action
What managers do.
Example: Restore a boat ramp.
Measure
Evidence of change.
Example: Reported ability to access the site.
SMART objectives are Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound.
Source: Chapter 6, §§6.3.2–6.3.2.2
A success metric should support a management decision
A useful metric is not merely easy to count. It should be:
- connected to an objective;
- sensitive enough to detect meaningful change;
- feasible to collect and interpret; and
- useful for choosing whether to continue, adjust, or replace an action.
Source: Chapter 6, §6.3.2.2.
“Do” includes implementation, not just a decision
Once an alternative is chosen, professionals must translate it into action through roles, resources, communication, partnerships, and attention to implementation conditions.
Source: Chapter 6, §6.3.3.
“Learn” requires monitoring and evaluation
Monitor
Collect information about conditions, implementation, and outcomes over time.
Evaluate
Interpret that information against objectives to decide what should change.
Learning can change an action, an objective, or the original problem frame.
Source: Chapter 6, §§6.3.4–6.3.4.2.
Preparing for Friday: Puget Sound
Puget Sound’s long-term recovery effort considers ecological conditions and human well-being together.
Come Friday ready to identify:
- the why, who, what, and how;
- one kind of evidence that matters; and
- one outcome worth monitoring.
Source: Chapter 6, Box 6.2
Exit check
An agency relies only on biological information to choose an action.
Which of the four decision questions is most likely to be weakened—and why?
Source: Chapter 6, §6.2