IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jmathe/v9y2021i4p430-d503518.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Multidimensional Fairness Equilibrium Evaluation of Urban Housing Expropriation Compensation Based on VIKOR

Author

Listed:
  • Zhaoyu Cao

    (School of Business, Central South University, Changsha 410083, China
    School of Public Administration, Hunan University of Finance and Economics, Changsha 410205, China)

  • Yucheng Zou

    (School of Business, Central South University, Changsha 410083, China)

  • Xu Zhao

    (School of Management, Hunan City University, Yiyang 413000, China)

  • Kairong Hong

    (School of Business, Central South University, Changsha 410083, China)

  • Yanwei Zhang

    (Department of Land Management, College of Public Administration, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430074, China)

Abstract

Against the backdrop of emerging markets and the transitional society, the large-scale start-up of real estate development projects has brought about rapid economic growth and accelerated urban expansion, followed by extreme disputes between social groups. This paper aims to effectively solve the real dilemma of urban housing expropriation by obtaining a consensus regarding the fairness of compensation standards among expropriation compensation-related subjects. Three behavioral preferences—profit-seeking fairness, loss aversion and interactive fairness—were added to a multidimensional fairness equilibrium evaluation indicator system of urban housing expropriation compensation. The entropy method was used to calculate their weights. A multidimensional fairness game model and a multidimensional fairness equilibrium evaluation method based on compromise multi-criteria decision-making VlseKriterijumska Optimizacija I Kompromisno Resenje (VIKOR) of urban housing expropriation compensation were constructed to combine different strategic schemes of related subjects for the purpose of obtaining the compromise optimal solution, that is, the multidimensional fairness game equilibrium solution. The stability of the multidimensional fairness game model and the objectivity of the multidimensional fairness equilibrium evaluation were tested and verified through case data analysis and sensitivity analysis. The conclusion is drawn that the multidimensional fairness game equilibrium solution can effectively resolve extreme disputes regarding urban housing expropriation.

Suggested Citation

  • Zhaoyu Cao & Yucheng Zou & Xu Zhao & Kairong Hong & Yanwei Zhang, 2021. "Multidimensional Fairness Equilibrium Evaluation of Urban Housing Expropriation Compensation Based on VIKOR," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-26, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:9:y:2021:i:4:p:430-:d:503518
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/9/4/430/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/9/4/430/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Falk, Armin & Fischbacher, Urs, 2006. "A theory of reciprocity," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 54(2), pages 293-315, February.
    2. Shalev, Jonathan, 1997. "Loss aversion in a multi-period model," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 203-226, June.
    3. 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.
    4. Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1991. "Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 106(4), pages 1039-1061.
    5. Henner Gimpel, 2007. "Loss Aversion and Reference-Dependent Preferences in Multi-Attribute Negotiations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 16(4), pages 303-319, July.
    6. Ernst Fehr & Susanne Kremhelmer & Klaus M. Schmidt, 2008. "Fairness and the Optimal Allocation of Ownership Rights," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 118(531), pages 1262-1284, August.
    7. Jonathan Shalev, 2000. "Loss aversion equilibrium," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 29(2), pages 269-287.
    8. Dufwenberg, Martin & Kirchsteiger, Georg, 2004. "A theory of sequential reciprocity," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 268-298, May.
    9. Opricovic, Serafim & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2007. "Extended VIKOR method in comparison with outranking methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 178(2), pages 514-529, April.
    10. Fabian Herweg & Klaus M. Schmidt, 2015. "Loss Aversion and Inefficient Renegotiation," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 82(1), pages 297-332.
    11. Ernst Fehr & Klaus M. Schmidt, 1999. "A Theory of Fairness, Competition, and Cooperation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 114(3), pages 817-868.
    12. Hisao Kameda & Eitan Altman & Corinne Touati & Arnaud Legrand, 2012. "Nash equilibrium based fairness," Mathematical Methods of Operations Research, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research (GOR);Nederlands Genootschap voor Besliskunde (NGB), vol. 76(1), pages 43-65, August.
    13. SHALEV, Jonathan, 1998. "Loss aversion in repeated games," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 1998014, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    14. Bartłomiej Kizielewicz & Jarosław Wątróbski & Wojciech Sałabun, 2020. "Identification of Relevant Criteria Set in the MCDA Process—Wind Farm Location Case Study," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(24), pages 1-40, December.
    15. Kyle Hyndman, 2011. "Repeated bargaining with reference-dependent preferences," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 40(3), pages 527-549, August.
    16. Alexander Kritikos, 2006. "The Impact of Compulsory Arbitration on Bargaining Behavior: An Experimental Study," Economics of Governance, Springer, vol. 7(3), pages 293-315, August.
    17. 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..
    18. Botond Koszegi & Matthew Rabin, 2007. "Reference-Dependent Risk Attitudes," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(4), pages 1047-1073, September.
    19. Charness, Gary & Haruvy, Ernan, 2002. "Altruism, equity, and reciprocity in a gift-exchange experiment: an encompassing approach," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 203-231, August.
    20. Dennis A. V. Dittrich & Werner Güth & Martin G. Kocher & Paul Pezanis‐Christou, 2012. "Loss Aversion and Learning to Bid," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 79(314), pages 226-257, April.
    21. Driesen, Bram & Perea, Andrés & Peters, Hans, 2012. "Alternating offers bargaining with loss aversion," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 103-118.
    22. John Kagel & Katherine Wolfe, 2001. "Tests of Fairness Models Based on Equity Considerations in a Three-Person Ultimatum Game," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 4(3), pages 203-219, December.
    23. Bateman, Ian & Kahneman, Daniel & Munro, Alistair & Starmer, Chris & Sugden, Robert, 2005. "Testing competing models of loss aversion: an adversarial collaboration," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(8), pages 1561-1580, August.
    24. Rabin, Matthew, 1993. "Incorporating Fairness into Game Theory and Economics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 83(5), pages 1281-1302, December.
    25. Kohler, Stefan, 2011. "Altruism and fairness in experimental decisions," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 80(1), pages 101-109.
    26. Yusufcan Masatlioglu & Collin Raymond, 2016. "A Behavioral Analysis of Stochastic Reference Dependence," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(9), pages 2760-2782, September.
    27. Thomas L. Saaty, 2013. "The Modern Science of Multicriteria Decision Making and Its Practical Applications: The AHP/ANP Approach," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 61(5), pages 1101-1118, October.
    28. Yanran Hong & Dongsheng Xu & Kaili Xiang & Han Qiao & Xiangxiang Cui & Huaxiang Xian, 2019. "Multi-Attribute Decision-Making Based on Preference Perspective with Interval Neutrosophic Sets in Venture Capital," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-13, March.
    29. Opricovic, Serafim & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2004. "Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 156(2), pages 445-455, July.
    30. Bertrand Mareschal & Jean Pierre Brans & Philippe Vincke, 1986. "How to select and how to rank projects: the Prométhée method," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/9307, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    31. Brans, J. P. & Vincke, Ph. & Mareschal, B., 1986. "How to select and how to rank projects: The method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 228-238, February.
    32. Henner Gimpel, 2007. "Preferences in Negotiations," Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, Springer, number 978-3-540-72338-7, December.
    33. Muhammad Riaz & Wojciech Sałabun & Hafiz Muhammad Athar Farid & Nawazish Ali & Jarosław Wątróbski, 2020. "A Robust q-Rung Orthopair Fuzzy Information Aggregation Using Einstein Operations with Application to Sustainable Energy Planning Decision Management," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-39, 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. Wątróbski, Jarosław & Bączkiewicz, Aleksandra & Sałabun, Wojciech, 2022. "New multi-criteria method for evaluation of sustainable RES management," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 324(C).

    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. Zhaoyu Cao & Xu Zhao & Yucheng Zou & Kairong Hong & Yanwei Zhang, 2021. "Multidimensional Fair Fuzzy Equilibrium Evaluation of Housing Expropriation Compensation from the Perspective of Behavioral Preference: A Case Study from China," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-22, March.
    2. Tarık Kara & Emin Karagözoğlu & Elif Özcan-Tok, 2021. "Bargaining, Reference Points, and Limited Influence," Dynamic Games and Applications, Springer, vol. 11(2), pages 326-362, June.
    3. Marco Fongoni & Alex Dickson, 2015. "A theory of wage setting behavior," Working Papers 1505, University of Strathclyde Business School, Department of Economics, revised Feb 2016.
    4. Gill, David & Stone, Rebecca, 2010. "Fairness and desert in tournaments," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 346-364, July.
    5. Teck H. Ho & Noah Lim & Colin Camerer, 2005. "Modeling the Psychology of Consumer and Firm Behavior with Behavioral Economics," Levine's Bibliography 784828000000000476, UCLA Department of Economics.
    6. Breitmoser, Yves & Vorjohann, Pauline, 2018. "Welfare-Based Altruism," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 89, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    7. He, Haoran & Wu, Keyu, 2016. "Choice set, relative income, and inequity aversion: An experimental investigation," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 177-193.
    8. Gill, David & Stone, Rebecca, 2015. "Desert and inequity aversion in teams," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 42-54.
    9. Khan, Abhimanyu, 2022. "Expected utility versus cumulative prospect theory in an evolutionary model of bargaining," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    10. Benistant, Julien & Suchon, Rémi, 2021. "It does (not) get better: Reference income violation and altruism," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    11. Jacobs Martin, 2016. "Accounting for Changing Tastes: Approaches to Explaining Unstable Individual Preferences," Review of Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 67(2), pages 121-183, August.
    12. Christian Thoeni & Simon Gaechter, 2011. "Peer Effects and Social Preferences in Voluntary Cooperation," Discussion Papers 2011-09, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    13. Croson, Rachel & Gächter, Simon, 2010. "The science of experimental economics," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 122-131, January.
    14. Axel Ockenfels & Dirk Sliwka & Peter Werner, 2015. "Bonus Payments and Reference Point Violations," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(7), pages 1496-1513, July.
    15. Gill, David & Stone, Rebecca, 2009. "Fairness and desert in tournaments," Discussion Paper Series In Economics And Econometrics 903, Economics Division, School of Social Sciences, University of Southampton.
    16. Jonathan Shalev, 1998. "Loss Aversion in Repeated Games," Game Theory and Information 9802005, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Ren Tan & Kairong Hong, 2021. "Research on Extreme Dispute Decisions of Large-Scale Engineering Projects from the Perspective of Multidimensional Preferences," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(22), pages 1-24, November.
    18. König, Clemens, 2013. "Net-Loss Reciprocation and the Context Dependency of Economic Choices," Discussion Papers in Economics 17474, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
    19. Fongoni, Marco & Dickson, Alex, 2015. "A Theory of Wage Setting Behavior," 2007 Annual Meeting, July 29-August 1, 2007, Portland, Oregon TN 2015-57, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    20. Kairong Hong & Yucheng Zou & Mingyuan Zhu & Yanwei Zhang, 2021. "A Game Analysis of Farmland Expropriation Conflict in China under Multi-Dimensional Preference: Cooperation or Resistance?," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-29, January.

    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:jmathe:v:9:y:2021:i:4:p:430-:d:503518. 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.