IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/grdene/v28y2019i6d10.1007_s10726-019-09635-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Probabilistic Option Prioritizing in the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution

Author

Listed:
  • Leandro Chaves Rêgo

    (Universidade Federal do Ceará
    Universidade Federal de Pernambuco)

  • Giannini Italino Alves Vieira

    (Universidade Federal do Ceará)

Abstract

Probabilistic preferences have been proposed in the graph model for conflict resolution (GMCR) to accommodate both situations in which a decision maker (DM) vacillates in which criteria to use when comparing two scenarios and also situations in which there is uncertainty regarding who will act as a DM representative. In this paper, we propose two option prioritizing techniques to obtain probabilistic preferences in the GMCR more efficiently. The crisp preference option prioritizing relies on an ordered sequence of preference statements that determines the crisp preference relation. In the first proposed technique, a probability distribution is associated with a class of ordered sequences of preference statements of the DM, where the probability of state s being preferred to state t by the DM consists of the sum of the probabilities of the ordered sequences of preference statements where s is preferred to t according to the crisp preference based on the corresponding ordered sequence of preference statements. In the second technique proposed, we allow for uncertainty both on the set of preference statements considered by a DM and also on which preference statement within the set is the most important one for him. An application is provided to illustrate the use of these techniques.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:28:y:2019:i:6:d:10.1007_s10726-019-09635-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s10726-019-09635-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10726-019-09635-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10726-019-09635-4?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Sharafat Ali & Haiyan Xu & Najid Ahmad, 2021. "Reviewing the strategies for climate change and sustainability after the US defiance of the Paris Agreement: an AHP–GMCR-based conflict resolution approach," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(8), pages 11881-11912, August.
    2. Meraj Sohrabi & Zeynab Banoo Ahani Amineh & Mohammad Hossein Niksokhan & Hossein Zanjanian, 2023. "A framework for optimal water allocation considering water value, strategic management and conflict resolution," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 1582-1613, February.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Leandro Chaves Rêgo & France E. G. Oliveira, 2020. "Higher-order Sequential Stabilities in the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution for Bilateral Conflicts," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(4), pages 601-626, August.
    6. Nannan Wu & Yejun Xu & D. Marc Kilgour, 2019. "Water allocation analysis of the Zhanghe River basin using the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution with incomplete fuzzy preferences," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-17, February.
    7. Pournabi, Nima & Janatrostami, Somaye & Ashrafzadeh, Afshin & Mohammadi, Kourosh, 2021. "Resolution of Internal conflicts for conservation of the Hour Al-Azim wetland using AHP-SWOT and game theory approach," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    8. 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.
    9. Augusto Getirana & Valéria de Fátima Malta, 2010. "Investigating Strategies of an Irrigation Conflict," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 24(12), pages 2893-2916, September.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Yasir M. Aljefri & Liping Fang & Keith W. Hipel & Kaveh Madani, 2019. "Strategic Analyses of the Hydropolitical Conflicts Surrounding the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 28(2), pages 305-340, April.
    13. Felipe Costa Araujo & Alexandre Bevilacqua Leoneti, 2020. "Evaluating the Stability of the Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Regulatory Framework in Brazil," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(1), pages 143-156, February.
    14. He, Shawei & Marc Kilgour, D. & Hipel, Keith W., 2017. "A general hierarchical graph model for conflict resolution with application to greenhouse gas emission disputes between USA and China," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 257(3), pages 919-932.
    15. Amir H. Aghmashhadi & Samaneh Zahedi & Azadeh Kazemi & Christine Fürst & Giuseppe T. Cirella, 2022. "Conflict Analysis of Physical Industrial Land Development Policy Using Game Theory and Graph Model for Conflict Resolution in Markazi Province," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-18, March.
    16. Mengjie Yang & Kai Yang & Yue Che & Shiqiang Lu & Fengyun Sun & Ying Chen & Mengting Li, 2021. "Resolving Transboundary Water Conflicts: Dynamic Evolutionary Analysis Using an Improved GMCR Model," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 35(10), pages 3321-3338, August.
    17. 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.
    18. Majid Sheikhmohammady & Keith W. Hipel & D. Marc Kilgour, 2012. "Formal Analysis of Multilateral Negotiations Over the Legal Status of the Caspian Sea," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 305-329, May.
    19. 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.
    20. 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.

    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:spr:grdene:v:28:y:2019:i:6:d:10.1007_s10726-019-09635-4. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.