IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jgeosy/v19y2017i2d10.1007_s10109-016-0243-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Towards a conceptual multi-agent-based framework to simulate the spatial group decision-making process

Author

Listed:
  • Seyed Morsal Ghavami

    (K.N.Toosi University of Technology)

  • Mohammad Taleai

    (K.N.Toosi University of Technology)

Abstract

Most spatial problems are multi-actor, multi-issue and multi-phase in nature. In addition to their intrinsic complexity, spatial problems usually involve groups of actors from different organizational and cognitive backgrounds, all of whom participate in a social structure to resolve or reduce the complexity of a given problem. Hence, it is important to study and evaluate what different aspects influence the spatial problem resolution process. Recently, multi-agent systems consisting of groups of separate agent entities all interacting with each other have been put forward as appropriate tools to use to study and resolve such problems. In this study, then in order to generate a better level of understanding regarding the spatial problem group decision-making process, a conceptual multi-agent-based framework is used that represents and specifies all the necessary concepts and entities needed to aid group decision making, based on a simulation of the group decision-making process as well as the relationships that exist among the different concepts involved. The study uses five main influencing entities as concepts in the simulation process: spatial influence, individual-level influence, group-level influence, negotiation influence and group performance measures. Further, it explains the relationship among different concepts in a descriptive rather than explanatory manner. To illustrate the proposed framework, the approval process for an urban land use master plan in Zanjan—a provincial capital in Iran—is simulated using MAS, the results highlighting the effectiveness of applying an MAS-based framework when wishing to study the group decision-making process used to resolve spatial problems.

Suggested Citation

  • Seyed Morsal Ghavami & Mohammad Taleai, 2017. "Towards a conceptual multi-agent-based framework to simulate the spatial group decision-making process," Journal of Geographical Systems, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 109-132, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:jgeosy:v:19:y:2017:i:2:d:10.1007_s10109-016-0243-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s10109-016-0243-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10109-016-0243-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10109-016-0243-9?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. Nash, John, 1950. "The Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 18(2), pages 155-162, April.
    2. Ying Long & Yongping Zhang, 2015. "Land-use pattern scenario analysis using planner agents," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 42(4), pages 615-637, July.
    3. N.R. Jennings & P. Faratin & A.R. Lomuscio & S. Parsons & M.J. Wooldridge & C. Sierra, 2001. "Automated Negotiation: Prospects, Methods and Challenges," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 10(2), pages 199-215, March.
    4. Ton de Nijs & Edzer Pebesma, 2010. "Estimating the Influence of the Neighbourhood in the Development of Residential Areas in the Netherlands," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 37(1), pages 21-41, February.
    5. Alessio R. Lomuscio & Michael Wooldridge & Nicholas R. Jennings, 2003. "A Classification Scheme for Negotiation in Electronic Commerce," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 31-56, January.
    6. Daniel G. Brown & Rick Riolo & Derek T. Robinson & Michael North & William Rand, 2005. "Spatial process and data models: Toward integration of agent-based models and GIS," Journal of Geographical Systems, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 25-47, October.
    7. Arentze, Theo A., 2015. "Individuals' social preferences in joint activity location choice: A negotiation model and empirical evidence," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 76-84.
    8. Hunt, Raymond G. & Krzystofiak, Frank J. & Meindl, James R. & Yousry, Abdalla M., 1989. "Cognitive style and decision making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 436-453, December.
    9. Arend Ligtenberg & Adrie Beulens & Dik Kettenis & Arnold K Bregt & Monica Wachowicz, 2009. "Simulating Knowledge Sharing in Spatial Planning: An Agent-Based Approach," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 36(4), pages 644-663, August.
    10. Huiye Ma & Nicole Ronald & Theo Arentze & Harry Timmermans, 2013. "Negotiating on location, timing, duration, and participant in agent-mediated joint activity-travel scheduling," Journal of Geographical Systems, Springer, vol. 15(4), pages 427-451, October.
    11. Fabian Lang & Andreas Fink, 2015. "Learning from the Metaheuristics: Protocols for Automated Negotiations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 299-332, March.
    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. Ghavami, Seyed Morsal, 2019. "Multi-criteria spatial decision support system for identifying strategic roads in disaster situations," International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 23-36.

    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. Fabian Lang & Andreas Fink, 2015. "Learning from the Metaheuristics: Protocols for Automated Negotiations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 299-332, March.
    2. Usha Kiruthika & Thamarai Selvi Somasundaram & S. Kanaga Suba Raja, 2020. "Lifecycle Model of a Negotiation Agent: A Survey of Automated Negotiation Techniques," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(6), pages 1239-1262, December.
    3. Jinsoo Park & Hamirahanim Abdul Rahman & Jihae Suh & Hazami Hussin, 2019. "A Study of Integrative Bargaining Model with Argumentation-Based Negotiation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-21, December.
    4. Melvin F. Shakun, 2005. "Multi-bilateral Multi-issue E-negotiation in E-commerce with a Tit-for-Tat Computer Agent," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 14(5), pages 383-392, September.
    5. Zhang, Linlan & Song, Haigang & Chen, Xueguang & Hong, Liu, 2011. "A simultaneous multi-issue negotiation through autonomous agents," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 210(1), pages 95-105, April.
    6. P. Ding & M. D. Gerst & G. Bang & M. E. Borsuk, 2015. "An Application of Automated Mediation to International Climate Treaty Negotiation," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 24(5), pages 885-903, September.
    7. Rudolf Vetschera & Michael Filzmoser & Ronald Mitterhofer, 2014. "An Analytical Approach to Offer Generation in Concession-Based Negotiation Processes," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 71-99, January.
    8. Bo Yu & Rustam Vahidov, 2019. "Applying Social Interaction Theory to Negotiation Modeling: Design of E-negotiation System," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 703-718, June.
    9. Luis C. Dias & Rudolf Vetschera, 2022. "Two-party Bargaining Processes Based on Subjective Expectations: A Model and a Simulation Study," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 31(4), pages 843-869, August.
    10. Arentze, Theo A., 2015. "Individuals' social preferences in joint activity location choice: A negotiation model and empirical evidence," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 76-84.
    11. Shazib E. Shaikh & Nikolay Mehandjiev, 2007. "E-Business Process Negotiation : Formal Requirements for Strategy Support," Microeconomics Working Papers 22278, East Asian Bureau of Economic Research.
    12. Tiago Pinto & Zita Vale & Isabel Praça & E. J. Solteiro Pires & Fernando Lopes, 2015. "Decision Support for Energy Contracts Negotiation with Game Theory and Adaptive Learning," Energies, MDPI, vol. 8(9), pages 1-26, September.
    13. Khalid Mansour & Ryszard Kowalczyk, 2015. "An Approach to One-to-Many Concurrent Negotiation," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 45-66, January.
    14. Lang, Fabian & Fink, Andreas & Brandt, Tobias, 2016. "Design of automated negotiation mechanisms for decentralized heterogeneous machine scheduling," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 248(1), pages 192-203.
    15. Maurizio Zanardi, 2004. "Antidumping law as a collusive device," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 37(1), pages 95-122, February.
    16. M. Hinojosa & A. Mármol & J. Zarzuelo, 2008. "Inequality averse multi-utilitarian bargaining solutions," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 37(4), pages 597-618, December.
    17. Matsui, Kenji, 2020. "Optimal bargaining timing of a wholesale price for a manufacturer with a retailer in a dual-channel supply chain," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 287(1), pages 225-236.
    18. Simon G�chter & Arno Riedl, "undated". "Moral Property Rights in Bargaining," IEW - Working Papers 113, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    19. H Peyton Young, 2014. "The Evolution of Social Norms," Economics Series Working Papers 726, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    20. Erkki Koskela & Ronnie Schöb, 2002. "Alleviating Unemployment: The Case for Green Tax Reforms," Chapters, in: Lawrence H. Goulder (ed.), Environmental Policy Making in Economies with Prior Tax Distortions, chapter 20, pages 355-378, Edward Elgar Publishing.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Conceptual framework; Multi-agent system; Spatial group decision making; Spatial planning; Land use planning;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • R14 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General Regional Economics - - - Land Use Patterns
    • R52 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Regional Government Analysis - - - Land Use and Other Regulations
    • R58 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Regional Government Analysis - - - Regional Development Planning and Policy

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:kap:jgeosy:v:19:y:2017:i:2:d:10.1007_s10109-016-0243-9. 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.