IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v15y2018i2p393-d133118.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Investigation of a Brownfield Conflict Considering the Strength of Preferences

Author

Listed:
  • Jing Yu

    (School of Economics and Management, Nanjing University of Science and Technology, Nanjing 210094, China
    Research Center for Low-Carbon Economy and Environmental Policy, Nanjing University of Science and Technology, Nanjing 210094, China
    Jiangsu Industrial Cluster Decision-Making and Consulting Research Base, Nanjing 210094, China
    Research Center for International Economy and Trade, Nanjing University of Science and Technology, Nanjing 210094, China)

  • Ling-Ling Pei

    (School of Business Administration, Zhejiang University of Finance & Economics, Hangzhou 310018, China)

Abstract

By employing the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution methodology, this paper models and analyzes a brownfield conflict that occurred at the Changzhou Foreign Language School in Jiangsu, China, in 2016. This conflict made national headlines when news reports revealed that a large number of students and staff suffered from health issues after the school moved to a new site that is built on recently restored land adjacent to the original “Chang Long Chemical” block. Since stakeholders in the conflict hold different strengths of preference, a new option prioritization technique is employed to elicit both crisp preferences and the strength of preferences for the decision-makers (DMs) in the conflict. The conflict analysis result is consistent with the actual trajectory of the conflict and provides strategic insights into the conflict. More specifically, equilibrium results suggest that the firm should have been required to thoroughly clean the site, the local government should not have relocated the school, and the environmental agency and other stakeholders should have closely monitored the firm’s activities. In short, strategic insights garnered from this case study indicate that positive interactions should be fostered among the local government, the enterprise, and the public to ensure sustainable brownfield land redevelopment in the future.

Suggested Citation

  • Jing Yu & Ling-Ling Pei, 2018. "Investigation of a Brownfield Conflict Considering the Strength of Preferences," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-11, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:15:y:2018:i:2:p:393-:d:133118
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/15/2/393/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/15/2/393/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Luai Hamouda & D. Marc Kilgour & Keith W. Hipel, 2004. "Strength of Preference in the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 13(5), pages 449-462, September.
    2. Kedong Yin & Li Yu & Xuemei Li, 2017. "An Improved Graph Model for Conflict Resolution Based on Option Prioritization and Its Application," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-14, October.
    3. D. Marc Kilgour & Keith W. Hipel & Liping Fang & Xiaoyong (John) Peng, 2001. "Coalition Analysis in Group Decision Support," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 10(2), pages 159-175, March.
    4. Chunhui Liu & Weixuan Song & Chen Zhou, 2017. "Unsuccessful Urban Governance of Brownfield Land Redevelopment: A Lesson from the Toxic Soil Event in Changzhou, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-14, May.
    5. M. Abul Bashar & Keith W. Hipel & D. Marc Kilgour & Amer Obeidi, 2018. "Interval fuzzy preferences in the graph model for conflict resolution," Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 287-315, September.
    6. Qian Wang & D. Marc Kilgour & Keith W. Hipel, 2015. "Numerical Methods to Calculate Fuzzy Boundaries for Brownfield Redevelopment Negotiations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 515-536, May.
    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. Shinan Zhao & Haiyan Xu, 2019. "A Novel Preference Elicitation Technique Based on a Graph Model and Its Application to a Brownfield Redevelopment Conflict in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(21), pages 1-14, October.
    2. 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.
    3. Qingye Han & Yuming Zhu & Ginger Y. Ke & Hongli Lin, 2019. "A Two-Stage Decision Framework for Resolving Brownfield Conflicts," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(6), pages 1-19, March.

    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. Keith W. Hipel & Liping Fang & D. Marc Kilgour, 2020. "The Graph Model for Conflict Resolution: Reflections on Three Decades of Development," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(1), pages 11-60, February.
    2. Shawei He, 2019. "Coalition Analysis in Basic Hierarchical Graph Model for Conflict Resolution with Application to Climate Change Governance Disputes," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 28(5), pages 879-906, October.
    3. Qingye Han & Yuming Zhu & Ginger Y. Ke & Hongli Lin, 2019. "A Two-Stage Decision Framework for Resolving Brownfield Conflicts," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(6), pages 1-19, March.
    4. Shinan Zhao & Haiyan Xu, 2019. "A Novel Preference Elicitation Technique Based on a Graph Model and Its Application to a Brownfield Redevelopment Conflict in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(21), pages 1-14, October.
    5. Sean B. Walker & Keith W. Hipel, 2017. "Strategy, Complexity and Cooperation: The Sino-American Climate Regime," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(5), pages 997-1027, September.
    6. Inohara, Takehiro, 2016. "State transition time analysis in the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 274(C), pages 372-382.
    7. Shawei He & Keith Hipel & D. Kilgour, 2014. "Water Diversion Conflicts in China: A Hierarchical Perspective," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 28(7), pages 1823-1837, May.
    8. Keith W. Hipel & Amer Obeidi, 2005. "Trade versus the environment: Strategic settlement from a systems engineering perspective," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(3), pages 211-233, September.
    9. Huang, Yuming & Ge, Bingfeng & Hipel, Keith W. & Fang, Liping & Zhao, Bin & Yang, Kewei, 2023. "Solving the inverse graph model for conflict resolution using a hybrid metaheuristic algorithm," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 305(2), pages 806-819.
    10. Ming Tang & Huchang Liao, 2022. "A graph model for conflict resolution with inconsistent preferences among large-scale participants," Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 455-478, September.
    11. Zhao, Shinan & Xu, Haiyan & Hipel, Keith W. & Fang, Liping, 2019. "Mixed stabilities for analyzing opponents’ heterogeneous behavior within the graph model for conflict resolution," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 277(2), pages 621-632.
    12. Song, Yang & Lyu, Yang & Qian, Sitong & Zhang, Xinjia & Lin, Huiying & Wang, Shijun, 2022. "Identifying urban candidate brownfield sites using multi-source data: The case of Changchun City, China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    13. Leandro Chaves Rêgo & Giannini Italino Alves Vieira, 2017. "Symmetric Sequential Stability in the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution with Multiple Decision Makers," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(4), pages 775-792, July.
    14. Han, Qingye & Zhu, Yuming & Ke, Ginger Y. & Hipel, Keith W., 2018. "An ordinal classification of brownfield remediation projects in China for the allocation of government funding," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 220-230.
    15. Al-Mutairi, M.S. & Hipel, K.W. & Kamel, M.S., 2008. "Trust and cooperation from a fuzzy perspective," Mathematics and Computers in Simulation (MATCOM), Elsevier, vol. 76(5), pages 430-446.
    16. M. Nassereddine & M. A. Ellakkis & A. Azar & M. D. Nayeri, 2021. "Developing a Multi-methodology for Conflict Resolution: Case of Yemen’s Humanitarian Crisis," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 301-320, April.
    17. Han, Qingye & Zhu, Yuming & Ke, Ginger Y. & Hipel, Keith W., 2019. "Public private partnership in brownfield remediation projects in China: Identification and structure analysis of risks," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 87-104.
    18. Kedong Yin & Li Yu & Xuemei Li, 2017. "An Improved Graph Model for Conflict Resolution Based on Option Prioritization and Its Application," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-14, October.
    19. Takehiro Inohara & Keith W. Hipel, 2008. "Coalition analysis in the graph model for conflict resolution," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(4), pages 343-359, December.
    20. Wu, Nannan & Xu, Yejun & Kilgour, D. Marc & Fang, Liping, 2023. "The graph model for composite decision makers and its application to a water resource conflict," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 306(1), pages 308-321.

    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:15:y:2018:i:2:p:393-:d:133118. 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.