IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v16y2019i6p1039-d216355.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Two-Stage Decision Framework for Resolving Brownfield Conflicts

Author

Listed:
  • Qingye Han

    (School of Management, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi’an 710100, China)

  • Yuming Zhu

    (School of Management, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi’an 710100, China)

  • Ginger Y. Ke

    (Faculty of Business Administration, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, NL A1B 3X9, Canada)

  • Hongli Lin

    (School of Management, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi’an 710100, China)

Abstract

Based on the Graph Model of Conflict Resolution (GMCR), a two-stage decision framework is developed to reveal the essence of brownfield incidents and facilitate the resolution of brownfield conflicts caused by the incidents. More particularly, the forward GMCR is utilized in Stage I, the negotiation stage, to simulate the evolution of a Brownfield Conflict (BC) and predict its potential resolution via stability analysis. If no acceptable equilibrium can be obtained, the BC progresses into Stage II, the third-party-intervention stage, where the inverse GMCR is used to assist a third party in intervening the conflict to achieve a desirable outcome. To illustrate the practicality of this framework, a recent BC that occurred in Changzhou, China, is taken as a case study. Invaluable insights are provided through the computation and investigation of the corresponding preference relationships.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:16:y:2019:i:6:p:1039-:d:216355
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/6/1039/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/6/1039/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Wang, Junjie & Hipel, Keith W. & Fang, Liping & Dang, Yaoguo, 2018. "Matrix representations of the inverse problem in the graph model for conflict resolution," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 270(1), pages 282-293.
    7. 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.
    8. Sai-On Cheung & Henry Suen, 2002. "A multi-attribute utility model for dispute resolution strategy selection," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(7), pages 557-568.
    9. D. Marc Kilgour & Keith W. Hipel, 2005. "The Graph Model for Conflict Resolution: Past, Present, and Future," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 14(6), pages 441-460, November.
    10. B Glumac & Q Han & W Schaefer, 2018. "A negotiation decision model for public–private partnerships in brownfield redevelopment," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 45(1), pages 145-160, January.
    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. Qingye Han & Yan Qin & Heng Zhang & Ginger Y. Ke, 2024. "Public Private Partnership to Brownfield Remediation Projects in China: A Combined Risk Evaluation Approach," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-18, 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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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).
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Elżbieta Radziszewska-Zielina & Dagmara Adamkiewicz & Bartłomiej Szewczyk & Olga Kania, 2022. "Decision-Making Support for Housing Projects in Post-Industrial Areas," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-26, March.
    9. 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.
    10. He, Shawei, 2022. "A time sensitive graph model for conflict resolution with application to international air carbon negotiation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 302(2), pages 652-670.
    11. 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.
    12. Liangyan Tao & Xuebi Su & Saad Ahmed Javed, 2021. "Inverse Preference Optimization in the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution based on the Genetic Algorithm," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(5), pages 1085-1112, October.
    13. 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.
    14. Giannini Italino Alves Vieira & Leandro Chaves Rêgo, 2020. "Berge Solution Concepts in the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(1), pages 103-125, February.
    15. 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.
    16. Ahmad, Naveed & Zhu, Yuming & Ullah, Zia & Iqbal, Muzaffar & Hussain, Kramat & Ahmed, Rahil Irfan, 2021. "Sustainable solutions to facilitate brownfield redevelopment projects in emerging countries – Pakistani scenario," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    17. Peng Xu & Haiyan Xu & Ginger Y. Ke, 2018. "Integrating an Option-Oriented Attitude Analysis into Investigating the Degree of Stabilities in Conflict Resolution," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 27(6), pages 981-1010, December.
    18. Haiyan Xu & D. Marc Kilgour & Keith W. Hipel, 2011. "Matrix Representation of Conflict Resolution in Multiple-Decision-Maker Graph Models with Preference Uncertainty," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 20(6), pages 755-779, November.
    19. Leandro Chaves Rêgo & France E. G. Oliveira, 2023. "An Extension of Higher-Order Sequential Stabilities for Multilateral Conflicts and for Coalitional Analysis in the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 32(5), pages 1117-1141, October.
    20. Leandro Chaves Rêgo & Giannini Italino Alves Vieira, 2019. "Probabilistic Option Prioritizing in the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 28(6), pages 1149-1165, December.

    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:16:y:2019:i:6:p:1039-:d:216355. 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.