 So the first step is the problem. Really making sure that you have a problem that is appropriate and defines the decision context. Most of the time we're defining problems based off of our own particular perspective. But with environmental management challenges in general, there's multiple stakeholders who need to be part of the conversation. And that means that they're coming with different perspectives about what that problem means. Understanding those perspectives and then defining a shared problem that we're all trying to solve is really critical so that we're not creating options based off of lots of different types of problems. We're really trying to work towards some type of shared solution. The second part is determining your objectives. These are your goals. What do you care about with these systems? So a lot of us care about various environmental goals like maximizing ecological enhancement, maximizing structure and function of the environmental system. However, important to a lot of these management decisions are social goals and objectives that absolutely must be part of the conversation. These are objectives like cost, social equity, making sure that we have a robust participatory process where voices are included. Those objectives are just as important. And one of the ways that it's important to make sure that those are captured is by making sure that all relevant stakeholders are part of the process and have an opportunity to share what matters to them. Thus, when constructing a list of your objectives, your decision model is only as good as the goals that you include in those models. So if you're missing objectives, if you're thinking about trade-offs, your model's incomplete. It doesn't mean that it doesn't provide you information, but it does mean that you have to think through what's not included that matters to this decision so that you can take the results and understand and contextualize them for the problem that you're working on. A couple of criteria one would want to consider with objectives is you want objectives that are complete, that they fully encompass all the things that all the stakeholders care about. They are concise. There's nothing that's redundant or unnecessary. You've made them as parsimonious as possible. They're controllable. It's something that we can influence as a result of this decision. And it's affected by the alternatives or the options that we're considering. So there's nothing that's in the objectives that is irrelevant to the challenge that we're facing, the options that we're trying to consider. You want your objectives understandable. You want someone to be able to look at them and know in general what you're talking about. And then finally, you want objectives that are preferentially independent. Now that means you don't need to know what's happening on one objective in order to know how you feel about another objective. So for example, I don't need to know anything about cost in order to assess how I feel about ecological enhancement and maximizing ecological enhancement.