IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v15y2018i4p751-d141027.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Nature Disaster Risk Evaluation with a Group Decision Making Method Based on Incomplete Hesitant Fuzzy Linguistic Preference Relations

Author

Listed:
  • Ming Tang

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

  • Huchang Liao

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

  • Zongmin Li

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

  • Zeshui Xu

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

Abstract

Because the natural disaster system is a very comprehensive and large system, the disaster reduction scheme must rely on risk analysis. Experts’ knowledge and experiences play a critical role in disaster risk assessment. The hesitant fuzzy linguistic preference relation is an effective tool to express experts’ preference information when comparing pairwise alternatives. Owing to the lack of knowledge or a heavy workload, information may be missed in the hesitant fuzzy linguistic preference relation. Thus, an incomplete hesitant fuzzy linguistic preference relation is constructed. In this paper, we firstly discuss some properties of the additive consistent hesitant fuzzy linguistic preference relation. Next, the incomplete hesitant fuzzy linguistic preference relation, the normalized hesitant fuzzy linguistic preference relation, and the acceptable hesitant fuzzy linguistic preference relation are defined. Afterwards, three procedures to estimate the missing information are proposed. The first one deals with the situation in which there are only n − 1 known judgments involving all the alternatives; the second one is used to estimate the missing information of the hesitant fuzzy linguistic preference relation with more known judgments; while the third procedure is used to deal with ignorance situations in which there is at least one alternative with totally missing information. Furthermore, an algorithm for group decision making with incomplete hesitant fuzzy linguistic preference relations is given. Finally, we illustrate our model with a case study about flood disaster risk evaluation. A comparative analysis is presented to testify the advantage of our method.

Suggested Citation

  • Ming Tang & Huchang Liao & Zongmin Li & Zeshui Xu, 2018. "Nature Disaster Risk Evaluation with a Group Decision Making Method Based on Incomplete Hesitant Fuzzy Linguistic Preference Relations," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-21, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:15:y:2018:i:4:p:751-:d:141027
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/15/4/751/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/15/4/751/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Chengguang Lai & Xiaohong Chen & Xiaoyu Chen & Zhaoli Wang & Xushu Wu & Shiwei Zhao, 2015. "A fuzzy comprehensive evaluation model for flood risk based on the combination weight of game theory," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 77(2), pages 1243-1259, June.
    4. Jim Hall & Paul Sayers & Richard Dawson, 2005. "National-scale Assessment of Current and Future Flood Risk in England and Wales," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 36(1), pages 147-164, September.
    5. S. Alonso & E. Herrera-Viedma & F. Chiclana & F. Herrera, 2009. "Individual And Social Strategies To Deal With Ignorance Situations In Multi-Person Decision Making," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 8(02), pages 313-333.
    6. Hong-Liang Qi & Wei-Ping Tian & Jia-Chun Li, 2015. "Regional Risk Evaluation of Flood Disasters for the Trunk-Highway in Shaanxi, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-10, October.
    7. Heiko Apel & Annegret Thieken & Bruno Merz & Günter Blöschl, 2006. "A Probabilistic Modelling System for Assessing Flood Risks," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 38(1), pages 79-100, 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. Runtong Zhang & Yuping Xing & Jun Wang & Xiaopu Shang & Xiaomin Zhu, 2018. "A Novel Multiattribute Decision-Making Method Based on Point–Choquet Aggregation Operators and Its Application in Supporting the Hierarchical Medical Treatment System in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-29, August.
    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.

    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. Giuliano Di Baldassarre & Attilio Castellarin & Alberto Montanari & Armando Brath, 2009. "Probability-weighted hazard maps for comparing different flood risk management strategies: a case study," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 50(3), pages 479-496, September.
    2. Guangpeng Wang & Yong Liu & Ziying Hu & Yanli Lyu & Guoming Zhang & Jifu Liu & Yun Liu & Yu Gu & Xichen Huang & Hao Zheng & Qingyan Zhang & Zongze Tong & Chang Hong & Lianyou Liu, 2020. "Flood Risk Assessment Based on Fuzzy Synthetic Evaluation Method in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei Metropolitan Area, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-30, February.
    3. Shanshan Hu & Xiangjun Cheng & Demin Zhou & Hong Zhang, 2017. "GIS-based flood risk assessment in suburban areas: a case study of the Fangshan District, Beijing," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 87(3), pages 1525-1543, July.
    4. Xiao‐Bing Hu & Hang Li & XiaoMei Guo & Pieter H. A. J. M. van Gelder & Peijun Shi, 2019. "Spatial Vulnerability of Network Systems under Spatially Local Hazards," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(1), pages 162-179, January.
    5. Dapeng Huang & Renhe Zhang & Zhiguo Huo & Fei Mao & Youhao E & Wei Zheng, 2012. "An assessment of multidimensional flood vulnerability at the provincial scale in China based on the DEA method," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 64(2), pages 1575-1586, November.
    6. Wenqi Liu & Hengjie Zhang & Haiming Liang & Cong-cong Li & Yucheng Dong, 2022. "Managing Consistency and Consensus Issues in Group Decision-Making with Self-Confident Additive Preference Relations and Without Feedback: A Nonlinear Optimization Method," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 31(1), pages 213-240, February.
    7. Ralf Merz & Günter Blöschl & Günter Humer, 2008. "National flood discharge mapping in Austria," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 46(1), pages 53-72, July.
    8. Thomas D. Pol & Ekko C. Ierland & Silke Gabbert, 2017. "Economic analysis of adaptive strategies for flood risk management under climate change," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 267-285, February.
    9. 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).
    10. Wanying Zhong & Yue Wang, 2022. "A study on the spatial and temporal variation of urban integrated vulnerability in Southwest China," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 114(3), pages 2855-2882, December.
    11. Dianfa Wu & Zhiping Yang & Ningling Wang & Chengzhou Li & Yongping Yang, 2018. "An Integrated Multi-Criteria Decision Making Model and AHP Weighting Uncertainty Analysis for Sustainability Assessment of Coal-Fired Power Units," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-27, May.
    12. Tang, Ming & Liao, Huchang, 2021. "From conventional group decision making to large-scale group decision making: What are the challenges and how to meet them in big data era? A state-of-the-art survey," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    13. K. M. Bruijn & N. Lips & B. Gersonius & H. Middelkoop, 2016. "The storyline approach: a new way to analyse and improve flood event management," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 81(1), pages 99-121, March.
    14. Xi Hu & Jim W. Hall & Peijun Shi & Wee Ho Lim, 2016. "The spatial exposure of the Chinese infrastructure system to flooding and drought hazards," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 80(2), pages 1083-1118, January.
    15. Xu, Zixuan & Ma, Jinfeng & Zheng, Hua & Wang, Lijing & Ying, Lingxiao & Li, Ruonan & Yang, Yanzheng, 2024. "Quantification of the flood mitigation ecosystem service by coupling hydrological and hydrodynamic models," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    16. Álvarez, Xana & Gómez-Rúa, María & Vidal-Puga, Juan, 2019. "Risk prevention of land flood: A cooperative game theory approach," MPRA Paper 91515, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Sauer, Johannes & Finger, Robert, 2014. "Climate Risk Management Strategies in Agriculture – The Case of Flood Risk," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 172679, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    18. Zbigniew Kundzewicz & Nicola Lugeri & Rutger Dankers & Yukiko Hirabayashi & Petra Döll & Iwona Pińskwar & Tomasz Dysarz & Stefan Hochrainer & Piotr Matczak, 2010. "Assessing river flood risk and adaptation in Europe—review of projections for the future," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 15(7), pages 641-656, October.
    19. Animesh Gain & Vahid Mojtahed & Claudio Biscaro & Stefano Balbi & Carlo Giupponi, 2015. "An integrated approach of flood risk assessment in the eastern part of Dhaka City," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 79(3), pages 1499-1530, December.
    20. 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.

    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:751-:d:141027. 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.