IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v277y2019i2p621-632.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Mixed stabilities for analyzing opponents’ heterogeneous behavior within the graph model for conflict resolution

Author

Listed:
  • Zhao, Shinan
  • Xu, Haiyan
  • Hipel, Keith W.
  • Fang, Liping

Abstract

Mixed stabilities are incorporated into the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution (GMCR) for modeling and analyzing a complicated conflict with heterogeneous opponents, consisting of both credible and non-credible players. To identify the mixed coalitional movements, mixed unilateral improvements (MUIs) are constructed in this research followed by a specific example. Subsequently, two types of mixed stabilities are developed within the GMCR paradigm for conveniently portraying different sanctioning behavior of heterogeneous opponents. Compared to general metarationality (GMR), symmetric metarationality (SMR) and sequential stability (SEQ), mixed stabilities take into account different sanctioning moves by opponents, which is more practical and useful for investigating real-world disputes. Furthermore, the interrelationships among mixed stabilities and four classical stabilities are discussed. Subsequently, equilibria with mixed stabilities are proposed, in which each decision maker may adopt a different solution concept defining his or her behavior. To enhance the efficiency of mixed stability calculations, the algebraic representations of mixed stabilities are then constructed. Finally, a generic environmental conflict in China is utilized to demonstrate how mixed stabilities can be employed to effectively address an actual dispute with heterogeneous opponents.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:277:y:2019:i:2:p:621-632
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2019.02.043
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221719301912
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ejor.2019.02.043?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. 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. Xu, Haiyan & Marc Kilgour, D. & Hipel, Keith W. & Kemkes, Graeme, 2010. "Using matrices to link conflict evolution and resolution in a graph model," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 207(1), pages 318-329, November.
    3. Amer Obeidi & D. Marc Kilgour & Keith W. Hipel, 2009. "Perceptual Graph Model Systems," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 261-277, May.
    4. 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.
    5. Haiyan Xu & D. Kilgour & Keith Hipel & Edward McBean, 2014. "Theory and implementation of coalitional analysis in cooperative decision making," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 76(2), pages 147-171, February.
    6. Kevin W. Li & Keith W. Hipel & D. Marc Kilgour & Donald Noakes, 2005. "Integrating Uncertain Preferences into Status Quo Analysis with Applications to an Environmental Conflict," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 14(6), pages 461-479, November.
    7. Haiyan Xu & Keith Hipel & D. Kilgour & Ye Chen, 2010. "Combining strength and uncertainty for preferences in the graph model for conflict resolution with multiple decision makers," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 69(4), pages 497-521, October.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    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. 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.
    3. Rêgo, Leandro Chaves & Kilgour, D. Marc, 2022. "Choice stabilities in the graph model for conflict resolution," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 301(3), pages 1064-1071.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.

    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. 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.
    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. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Haiyan Xu & D. Kilgour & Keith Hipel & Edward McBean, 2014. "Theory and implementation of coalitional analysis in cooperative decision making," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 76(2), pages 147-171, February.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Garcia, A. & Hipel, K.W., 2017. "Inverse engineering preferences in simple games," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 311(C), pages 184-194.
    11. Haiyan Xu & Yu Han & Ginger Y. Ke & Jun Zhu, 2022. "Modeling and Implementation of a New Negotiation Decision Support System for Conflict Resolution Under Uncertainty," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 31(3), pages 531-553, June.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. Yu Han & Haiyan Xu & Ginger Y. Ke, 2020. "Construction and application of hyper-inverse conflict models based on the sequential stability," EURO Journal on Decision Processes, Springer;EURO - The Association of European Operational Research Societies, vol. 8(3), pages 237-259, November.
    16. Leandro Chaves Rêgo & Giannini Italino Alves Vieira, 2021. "Matrix Representation of Solution Concepts in the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution with Probabilistic Preferences and Multiple Decision Makers," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 697-717, June.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. 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.

    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:eee:ejores:v:277:y:2019:i:2:p:621-632. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eor .

    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.