IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v120y2022ics0264837722002836.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An intelligent web-based spatial group decision support system to investigate the role of the opponents’ modeling in urban land use planning

Author

Listed:
  • Ghavami, Seyed Morsal
  • Taleai, Mohammad
  • Arentze, Theo

Abstract

Urban land-use planning decisions generally require negotiation between multiple stakeholders to reach an agreement on a specific plan. Computer-aided tools such as group decision support systems can facilitate the actors in this complicated process. In the context of these systems, using software agents enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of group decision support. The software agents can perform some computational and analytical tasks on behalf of the stakeholders. In more advanced cases, the agents can also learn stakeholders’ preferences and behavior to help them make good decisions. This paper proposes an intelligent web-based spatial group decision support system to investigate the role of opponents modeling in urban land use planning by using a multi-agent system approach. For this purpose, two successive meetings are held in which the system is used: in the first meeting, the stakeholders revise the existing plans and respond to other stakeholders’ requests. During the meeting, software agents attempt to model the behavior of the stakeholders they are associated with, based on a Bayesian learning method in combination with social value orientation theory to describe stakeholders’ decision behavior in a group context. In the second meeting, the software agents help the stakeholders in the step of plan revision by providing the information obtained to the stakeholders. In an application, a comparison of the results of the meetings showed that the provided information about the opponents reduced the negotiation time and contributed to reaching a better spatial configuration of land-uses based on a criterion provided by social value orientation theory.

Suggested Citation

  • Ghavami, Seyed Morsal & Taleai, Mohammad & Arentze, Theo, 2022. "An intelligent web-based spatial group decision support system to investigate the role of the opponents’ modeling in urban land use planning," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:120:y:2022:i:c:s0264837722002836
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106256
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837722002836
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106256?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David K. Levine, 1998. "Modeling Altruism and Spitefulness in Experiment," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 1(3), pages 593-622, July.
    2. Usha Kiruthika & Thamarai Selvi Somasundaram & S. Kanaga Suba Raja, 2020. "Lifecycle Model of a Negotiation Agent: A Survey of Automated Negotiation Techniques," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(6), pages 1239-1262, December.
    3. repec:cup:judgdm:v:6:y:2011:i:8:p:771-781 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Murphy, Ryan O. & Ackermann, Kurt A. & Handgraaf, Michel J. J., 2011. "Measuring Social Value Orientation," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 6(8), pages 771-781, December.
    5. Bibri, Simon Elias, 2020. "Compact urbanism and the synergic potential of its integration with data-driven smart urbanism : An extensive interdisciplinary literature review," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    6. An, Li, 2012. "Modeling human decisions in coupled human and natural systems: Review of agent-based models," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 229(C), pages 25-36.
    7. Arentze, Theo A., 2015. "Individuals' social preferences in joint activity location choice: A negotiation model and empirical evidence," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 76-84.
    8. González-Méndez, Mauricio & Olaya, Camilo & Fasolino, Isidoro & Grimaldi, Michele & Obregón, Nelson, 2021. "Agent-Based Modeling for Urban Development Planning based on Human Needs. Conceptual Basis and Model Formulation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    9. Hamed Taherdoost, 2016. "Validity and Reliability of the Research Instrument; How to Test the Validation of a Questionnaire/Survey in a Research," Post-Print hal-02546799, HAL.
    10. Omidipoor, Morteza & Jelokhani-Niaraki, Mohammadreza & Moeinmehr, Athena & Sadeghi-Niaraki, Abolghasem & Choi, Soo-Mi, 2019. "A GIS-based decision support system for facilitating participatory urban renewal process," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    11. Gaber, John & Gaber, Sharon L., 2010. "Using face validity to recognize empirical community observations," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 138-146, May.
    12. Panagiotis Getimis, 2012. "Comparing Spatial Planning Systems and Planning Cultures in Europe. The Need for a Multi-scalar Approach," Planning Practice & Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(1), pages 25-40.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Wladislaw Mill & John Morgan, 2022. "The cost of a divided America: an experimental study into destructive behavior," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(3), pages 974-1001, June.
    2. Holzmeister, F. & Kerschbamer, R., 2019. "oTree: The Equality Equivalence Test," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 22(C), pages 214-222.
    3. repec:grz:wpsses:2017-06 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Masiliūnas, Aidas & Nax, Heinrich H., 2020. "Framing and repeated competition," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 604-619.
    5. Robert Stüber, 2020. "The benefit of the doubt: willful ignorance and altruistic punishment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(3), pages 848-872, September.
    6. Nax, Heinrich H. & Murphy, Ryan O. & Ackermann, Kurt A., 2015. "Interactive preferences," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 133-136.
    7. Juergen Bracht & Adam Zylbersztejn, 2018. "Moral judgments, gender, and antisocial preferences: an experimental study," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 85(3), pages 389-406, October.
    8. Agnes Bäker & Werner Güth & Kerstin Pull & Manfred Stadler, 2012. "On the Context-Dependency of Inequality Aversion - Experimental Evidence and a Stylized Model -," Jena Economics Research Papers 2012-023, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    9. Zakaria Babutsidze & Nobuyuki Hanaki & Adam Zylbersztejn, 2019. "Digital Communication and Swift Trust," Post-Print halshs-02409314, HAL.
    10. Ficko, Andrej & Boncina, Andrej, 2013. "Probabilistic typology of management decision making in private forest properties," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 34-43.
    11. Adrian Bruhin & Ernst Fehr & Daniel Schunk, 2019. "The many Faces of Human Sociality: Uncovering the Distribution and Stability of Social Preferences," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 17(4), pages 1025-1069.
    12. Emin Karagözoğlu & Elif Tosun, 2022. "Endogenous Game Choice and Giving Behavior in Distribution Games," Games, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-32, November.
    13. R. M. Harstad & R. Selten, 2014. "Bounded-rationality models:tasks to become intellectually competitive," Voprosy Ekonomiki, NP Voprosy Ekonomiki, issue 5.
    14. repec:cup:judgdm:v:12:y:2017:i:3:p:224-235 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Quement, Mark T. Le & Marcin, Isabel, 2020. "Communication and voting in heterogeneous committees: An experimental study," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 174(C), pages 449-468.
    16. Urs Fischbacher & Simeon Schudy, 2014. "Reciprocity and resistance to comprehensive reform," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 160(3), pages 411-428, September.
    17. Carlos A. de Matos Fernandes & Dieko M. Bakker & Jacob Dijkstra, 2022. "Assessing the test-retest reliability of the social value orientation slider measure," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 17(1), pages 31-49, January.
    18. Ramalingam, Abhijit, 2009. ""Endogenous" Relative Concerns: The Impact of Workers' Characteristics on Status and Pro ts in the Firm," MPRA Paper 18759, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. von Siemens, Ferdinand A., 2013. "Intention-based reciprocity and the hidden costs of control," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 55-65.
    20. Katarina Kostelić, 2021. "Game Awareness: A Questionnaire," Games, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-39, December.
    21. Qingxu Huang & Dawn C Parker & Tatiana Filatova & Shipeng Sun, 2014. "A Review of Urban Residential Choice Models Using Agent-Based Modeling," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 41(4), pages 661-689, August.
    22. Auziņš Armands & Viesturs Jānis, 2017. "A Values-Led Planning Approach for Sustainable Land Use and Development," Baltic Journal of Real Estate Economics and Construction Management, Sciendo, vol. 5(1), pages 275-286, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:120:y:2022:i:c:s0264837722002836. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.