IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v14y2017i9p1012-d110825.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

On Consistency Test Method of Expert Opinion in Ecological Security Assessment

Author

Listed:
  • Zaiwu Gong

    (Collaborative Innovation Center on Forecast and Evaluation of Meteorological Disasters, College of Economics and Management, Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology, Nanjing 210044, China)

  • Lihong Wang

    (Collaborative Innovation Center on Forecast and Evaluation of Meteorological Disasters, College of Economics and Management, Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology, Nanjing 210044, China)

Abstract

To reflect the initiative design and initiative of human security management and safety warning, ecological safety assessment is of great value. In the comprehensive evaluation of regional ecological security with the participation of experts, the expert’s individual judgment level, ability and the consistency of the expert’s overall opinion will have a very important influence on the evaluation result. This paper studies the consistency measure and consensus measure based on the multiplicative and additive consistency property of fuzzy preference relation (FPR). We firstly propose the optimization methods to obtain the optimal multiplicative consistent and additively consistent FPRs of individual and group judgments, respectively. Then, we put forward a consistency measure by computing the distance between the original individual judgment and the optimal individual estimation, along with a consensus measure by computing the distance between the original collective judgment and the optimal collective estimation. In the end, we make a case study on ecological security for five cities. Result shows that the optimal FPRs are helpful in measuring the consistency degree of individual judgment and the consensus degree of collective judgment.

Suggested Citation

  • Zaiwu Gong & Lihong Wang, 2017. "On Consistency Test Method of Expert Opinion in Ecological Security Assessment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-18, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:14:y:2017:i:9:p:1012-:d:110825
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/14/9/1012/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/14/9/1012/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dong, Yucheng & Xu, Yinfeng & Li, Hongyi, 2008. "On consistency measures of linguistic preference relations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 189(2), pages 430-444, September.
    2. Gong, Zaiwu & Xu, Xiaoxia & Zhang, Huanhuan & Aytun Ozturk, U. & Herrera-Viedma, Enrique & Xu, Chao, 2015. "The consensus models with interval preference opinions and their economic interpretation," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 81-90.
    3. Gong, Zaiwu & Zhang, Huanhuan & Forrest, Jeffrey & Li, Lianshui & Xu, Xiaoxia, 2015. "Two consensus models based on the minimum cost and maximum return regarding either all individuals or one individual," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 240(1), pages 183-192.
    4. Xiao Tan & Zaiwu Gong & Minji Huang & Zhou-Jing Wang, 2017. "Selecting Cooking Methods to Decrease Persistent Organic Pollutant Concentrations in Food of Animal Origin Using a Consensus Decision-Making Model," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(2), pages 1-18, February.
    5. Lafuite, A.-S. & Loreau, M., 2017. "Time-delayed biodiversity feedbacks and the sustainability of social-ecological systems," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 351(C), pages 96-108.
    6. Guangquan Zhang & Jie Lu, 2003. "An Integrated Group Decision-Making Method Dealing with Fuzzy Preferences for Alternatives and Individual Judgments for Selection Criteria," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 12(6), pages 501-515, November.
    7. Herrera-Viedma, E. & Herrera, F. & Chiclana, F. & Luque, M., 2004. "Some issues on consistency of fuzzy preference relations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 154(1), pages 98-109, April.
    8. Xiayu Tong & Zhou-Jing Wang, 2016. "A Group Decision Framework with Intuitionistic Preference Relations and Its Application to Low Carbon Supplier Selection," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-16, September.
    9. Wuyong Qian & Zhou-Jing Wang & Kevin W. Li, 2016. "Medical Waste Disposal Method Selection Based on a Hierarchical Decision Model with Intuitionistic Fuzzy Relations," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-13, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ning Zhang & Zaiwu Gong & Kedong Yin & Yuhong Wang, 2018. "Special Issue “Decision Models in Green Growth and Sustainable Development”," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-8, May.
    2. Xi Chen & Dawei Xu & Safa Fadelelseed & Lianying Li, 2019. "Spatiotemporal Analysis and Control of Landscape Eco-Security at the Urban Fringe in Shrinking Resource Cities: A Case Study in Daqing, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(23), pages 1-26, November.

    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. Lihong Wang & Zaiwu Gong, 2017. "Priority of a Hesitant Fuzzy Linguistic Preference Relation with a Normal Distribution in Meteorological Disaster Risk Assessment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-16, October.
    2. Wu, Zhibin & Huang, Shuai & Xu, Jiuping, 2019. "Multi-stage optimization models for individual consistency and group consensus with preference relations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 275(1), pages 182-194.
    3. Wu, Zhibin & Xu, Jiuping, 2016. "Managing consistency and consensus in group decision making with hesitant fuzzy linguistic preference relations," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 28-40.
    4. Yan, Hong-Bin & Ma, Tieju & Huynh, Van-Nam, 2017. "On qualitative multi-attribute group decision making and its consensus measure: A probability based perspective," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 94-117.
    5. González-Arteaga, T. & Alcantud, J.C.R. & de Andrés Calle, R., 2016. "A cardinal dissensus measure based on the Mahalanobis distance," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 251(2), pages 575-585.
    6. Gong, Zaiwu & Guo, Weiwei & Słowiński, Roman, 2021. "Transaction and interaction behavior-based consensus model and its application to optimal carbon emission reduction," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    7. Fu, Chao & Yang, Shanlin, 2012. "An evidential reasoning based consensus model for multiple attribute group decision analysis problems with interval-valued group consensus requirements," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 223(1), pages 167-176.
    8. Zhang, Bowen & Dong, Yucheng & Zhang, Hengjie & Pedrycz, Witold, 2020. "Consensus mechanism with maximum-return modifications and minimum-cost feedback: A perspective of game theory," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 287(2), pages 546-559.
    9. Zhang, Hengjie & Dong, Yucheng & Chiclana, Francisco & Yu, Shui, 2019. "Consensus efficiency in group decision making: A comprehensive comparative study and its optimal design," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 275(2), pages 580-598.
    10. Ping Lu & Xuan Yang & Zhou-Jing Wang, 2018. "Fuzzy Group Consensus Decision Making and Its Use in Selecting Energy-Saving and Low-Carbon Technology Schemes in Star Hotels," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-18, September.
    11. Fu, Chao & Yang, Shan-Lin, 2010. "The group consensus based evidential reasoning approach for multiple attributive group decision analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 206(3), pages 601-608, November.
    12. Xiangrui Chao & Yucheng Dong & Gang Kou & Yi Peng, 2022. "How to determine the consensus threshold in group decision making: a method based on efficiency benchmark using benefit and cost insight," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 316(1), pages 143-177, September.
    13. Zhen Zhang & Chonghui Guo, 2017. "Deriving priority weights from intuitionistic multiplicative preference relations under group decision-making settings," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 68(12), pages 1582-1599, December.
    14. Zhang, Huanhuan & Kou, Gang & Peng, Yi, 2019. "Soft consensus cost models for group decision making and economic interpretations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 277(3), pages 964-980.
    15. Cheng, Dong & Yuan, Yuxiang & Wu, Yong & Hao, Tiantian & Cheng, Faxin, 2022. "Maximum satisfaction consensus with budget constraints considering individual tolerance and compromise limit behaviors," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 297(1), pages 221-238.
    16. Li, Huanhuan & Ji, Ying & Ding, Jieyu & Qu, Shaojian & Zhang, Huijie & Li, Yuanming & Liu, Yubing, 2024. "Robust two-stage optimization consensus models with uncertain costs," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 317(3), pages 977-1002.
    17. Xiao Tan & Zaiwu Gong & Minji Huang & Zhou-Jing Wang, 2017. "Selecting Cooking Methods to Decrease Persistent Organic Pollutant Concentrations in Food of Animal Origin Using a Consensus Decision-Making Model," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(2), pages 1-18, February.
    18. Meng, Fanyong & Tan, Chunqiao & Chen, Xiaohong, 2017. "Multiplicative consistency analysis for interval fuzzy preference relations: A comparative study," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 17-38.
    19. Du, Junliang & Liu, Sifeng & Liu, Yong, 2022. "A limited cost consensus approach with fairness concern and its application," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 298(1), pages 261-275.
    20. Guo, Weiwei & Gong, Zaiwu & Zhang, Wei-Guo & Xu, Yanxin, 2023. "Minimum cost consensus modeling under dynamic feedback regulation mechanism considering consensus principle and tolerance level," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 306(3), pages 1279-1295.

    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:gam:jijerp:v:14:y:2017:i:9:p:1012-:d:110825. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.