IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v15y2018i4p664-d139317.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Hesitant Fuzzy Linguistic Preference Utility Set and Its Application in Selection of Fire Rescue Plans

Author

Listed:
  • Huchang Liao

    (Business School, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610064, China
    Department of Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence, University of Granada, E-18071 Granada, Spain)

  • Guangsen Si

    (Business School, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610064, China)

  • Zeshui Xu

    (Business School, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610064, China)

  • Hamido Fujita

    (Faculty of Software and Information Science, Iwate Prefectural University, Iwate 020-0193, Japan)

Abstract

Hesitant fuzzy linguistic term set provides an effective tool to represent uncertain decision information. However, the semantics corresponding to the linguistic terms in it cannot accurately reflect the decision-makers’ subjective cognition. In general, different decision-makers’ sensitivities towards the semantics are different. Such sensitivities can be represented by the cumulative prospect theory value function. Inspired by this, we propose a linguistic scale function to transform the semantics corresponding to linguistic terms into the linguistic preference values. Furthermore, we propose the hesitant fuzzy linguistic preference utility set, based on which, the decision-makers can flexibly express their distinct semantics and obtain the decision results that are consistent with their cognition. For calculations and comparisons over the hesitant fuzzy linguistic preference utility sets, we introduce some distance measures and comparison laws. Afterwards, to apply the hesitant fuzzy linguistic preference utility sets in emergency management, we develop a method to obtain objective weights of attributes and then propose a hesitant fuzzy linguistic preference utility-TOPSIS method to select the best fire rescue plan. Finally, the validity of the proposed method is verified by some comparisons of the method with other two representative methods including the hesitant fuzzy linguistic-TOPSIS method and the hesitant fuzzy linguistic-VIKOR method.

Suggested Citation

  • Huchang Liao & Guangsen Si & Zeshui Xu & Hamido Fujita, 2018. "Hesitant Fuzzy Linguistic Preference Utility Set and Its Application in Selection of Fire Rescue Plans," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-18, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:15:y:2018:i:4:p:664-:d:139317
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/15/4/664/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/15/4/664/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    2. Peijia Ren & Zeshui Xu & Jing Gu, 2016. "Assessments of the Effectiveness of an Earthquake Emergency Plan Implementation with Hesitant Analytic Hierarchy Process," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 15(06), pages 1367-1389, November.
    3. Xu, Zeshui, 2005. "Deviation measures of linguistic preference relations in group decision making," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 249-254, June.
    4. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    5. Junling Zhang & Gajanan G. Hegde & Jennifer Shang & Xiaowen Qi, 2016. "Evaluating Emergency Response Solutions for Sustainable Community Development by Using Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Group Decision Making Approaches: IVDHF-TOPSIS and IVDHF-VIKOR," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-28, March.
    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. Xia Liu & Yejun Xu & Yao Ge & Weike Zhang & Francisco Herrera, 2019. "A Group Decision Making Approach Considering Self-Confidence Behaviors and Its Application in Environmental Pollution Emergency Management," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(3), pages 1-15, January.
    3. Guofeng Ma & Sheng Tan & Shanshan Shang, 2019. "The Evaluation of Building Fire Emergency Response Capability Based on the CMM," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(11), pages 1-15, June.
    4. Guohua Qu & Rudan Xue & Tianjiao Li & Weihua Qu & Zeshui Xu, 2020. "A Stochastic Multi-Attribute Method for Measuring Sustainability Performance of a Supplier Based on a Triple Bottom Line Approach in a Dual Hesitant Fuzzy Linguistic Environment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(6), pages 1-26, 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. van den Bergh, J.C.J.M. & Botzen, W.J.W., 2015. "Monetary valuation of the social cost of CO2 emissions: A critical survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 33-46.
    2. Shoji, Isao & Kanehiro, Sumei, 2016. "Disposition effect as a behavioral trading activity elicited by investors' different risk preferences," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 104-112.
    3. Jonathan Meng & Feng Fu, 2020. "Understanding Gambling Behavior and Risk Attitudes Using Cryptocurrency-based Casino Blockchain Data," Papers 2008.05653, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2020.
    4. Daniel Fonseca Costa & Francisval Carvalho & Bruno César Moreira & José Willer Prado, 2017. "Bibliometric analysis on the association between behavioral finance and decision making with cognitive biases such as overconfidence, anchoring effect and confirmation bias," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(3), pages 1775-1799, June.
    5. Boone, Jan & Sadrieh, Abdolkarim & van Ours, Jan C., 2009. "Experiments on unemployment benefit sanctions and job search behavior," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(8), pages 937-951, November.
    6. Castro, Luciano de & Galvao, Antonio F. & Kim, Jeong Yeol & Montes-Rojas, Gabriel & Olmo, Jose, 2022. "Experiments on portfolio selection: A comparison between quantile preferences and expected utility decision models," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    7. Jos'e Cl'audio do Nascimento, 2019. "Behavioral Biases and Nonadditive Dynamics in Risk Taking: An Experimental Investigation," Papers 1908.01709, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2023.
    8. Francesco GUALA, 2017. "Preferences: Neither Behavioural nor Mental," Departmental Working Papers 2017-05, Department of Economics, Management and Quantitative Methods at Università degli Studi di Milano.
    9. Bin Zou, 2017. "Optimal Investment In Hedge Funds Under Loss Aversion," International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Finance (IJTAF), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 20(03), pages 1-32, May.
    10. Itzhak Gilboa & Andrew Postlewaite & Larry Samuelson & David Schmeidler, 2019. "What are axiomatizations good for?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 86(3), pages 339-359, May.
    11. Wiafe, Osei K. & Basu, Anup K. & Chen, En Te, 2020. "Portfolio choice after retirement: Should self-annuitisation strategies hold more equities?," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 241-255.
    12. Nicholas Barberis, 2012. "A Model of Casino Gambling," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(1), pages 35-51, January.
    13. Lovric, M. & Kaymak, U. & Spronk, J., 2008. "A Conceptual Model of Investor Behavior," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2008-030-F&A, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    14. Goytom Abraha Kahsay & Daniel Osberghaus, 2018. "Storm Damage and Risk Preferences: Panel Evidence from Germany," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(1), pages 301-318, September.
    15. Carolin Bock & Maximilian Schmidt, 2015. "Should I stay, or should I go? – How fund dynamics influence venture capital exit decisions," Review of Financial Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(1), pages 68-82, November.
    16. Hooi Hooi Lean & Michael McAleer & Wing-Keung Wong, 2013. "Risk-averse and Risk-seeking Investor Preferences for Oil Spot and Futures," Documentos de Trabajo del ICAE 2013-31, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales, Instituto Complutense de Análisis Económico, revised Aug 2013.
    17. Paredes-Frigolett, Harold, 2016. "Modeling the effect of responsible research and innovation in quadruple helix innovation systems," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 126-133.
    18. Karle, Heiko & Schumacher, Heiner & Vølund, Rune, 2023. "Consumer loss aversion and scale-dependent psychological switching costs," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 214-237.
    19. Christian Gollier & James Hammitt & Nicolas Treich, 2013. "Risk and choice: A research saga," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 129-145, October.
    20. Carter, Steven & McBride, Michael, 2013. "Experienced utility versus decision utility: Putting the ‘S’ in satisfaction," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 13-23.

    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:4:p:664-:d:139317. 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.