IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/grdene/v29y2020i5d10.1007_s10726-020-09684-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Two-Stage Optimization Model for Large-Scale Group Decision-Making in Disaster Management: Minimizing Group Conflict and Maximizing Individual Satisfaction

Author

Listed:
  • Qifeng Wan

    (Central South University)

  • Xuanhua Xu

    (Central South University)

  • Xiaohong Chen

    (Central South University)

  • Jun Zhuang

    (The State University of New York at Buffalo)

Abstract

As for large-scale group decision-making (LSGDM) in disaster management, the number of decision makers is so large-scale that decision-making is time consuming, but sometimes disaster management is urgent for time. Inspired by multiplayer game theories, this paper proposes a two-stage optimization model that maximizes individual satisfaction at the first stage and minimizes group conflict at the second stage. Furthermore, the introduction of public social media data to determine decision criteria and weights greatly improves the objectivity of decision-making. The proposed method effectively saves the decision time while ensuring the quality of LSGDM. The case study verifies the feasibility of the method.

Suggested Citation

  • Qifeng Wan & Xuanhua Xu & Xiaohong Chen & Jun Zhuang, 2020. "A Two-Stage Optimization Model for Large-Scale Group Decision-Making in Disaster Management: Minimizing Group Conflict and Maximizing Individual Satisfaction," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(5), pages 901-921, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:29:y:2020:i:5:d:10.1007_s10726-020-09684-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s10726-020-09684-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10726-020-09684-0
    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/s10726-020-09684-0?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. Pei Wang & Xuanhua Xu & Shuai Huang, 2019. "An Improved Consensus-Based Model for Large Group Decision Making Problems Considering Experts with Linguistic Weighted Information," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 28(3), pages 619-640, June.
    2. Austen-Smith, David & Banks, Jeffrey S., 1996. "Information Aggregation, Rationality, and the Condorcet Jury Theorem," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 90(1), pages 34-45, March.
    3. Jean‐Pierre Benoît & Juan Dubra, 2013. "On The Problem Of Prevention," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 54, pages 787-805, August.
    4. Yang Xiao & Beiqun Li & Zaiwu Gong, 2018. "Real-time identification of urban rainstorm waterlogging disasters based on Weibo big data," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 94(2), pages 833-842, November.
    5. Guttman, Joel M., 1998. "Unanimity and majority rule: the calculus of consent reconsidered," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 14(2), pages 189-207, May.
    6. Liu, Bingsheng & Shen, Yinghua & Zhang, Wei & Chen, Xiaohong & Wang, Xueqing, 2015. "An interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy principal component analysis model-based method for complex multi-attribute large-group decision-making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 245(1), pages 209-225.
    7. Jianjun Zhu & Shitao Zhang & Ye Chen & Lili Zhang, 2016. "A Hierarchical Clustering Approach Based on Three-Dimensional Gray Relational Analysis for Clustering a Large Group of Decision Makers with Double Information," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 325-354, March.
    8. Liu, Bingsheng & Zhou, Qi & Ding, Ru-Xi & Palomares, Iván & Herrera, Francisco, 2019. "Large-scale group decision making model based on social network analysis: Trust relationship-based conflict detection and elimination," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 275(2), pages 737-754.
    9. Shenghai Zhou & Xuanhua Xu & Yanju Zhou & Xiaohong Chen, 2017. "A Large Group Decision-Making Method Based on Fuzzy Preference Relation," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 16(03), pages 881-897, 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. Junliang Du & Sifeng Liu & Yong Liu & Liangyan Tao, 2023. "Multi-criteria Large-Scale Group Decision-Making in Linguistic Contexts: A Perspective of Conflict Analysis and Resolution," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 32(1), pages 177-207, February.
    2. Tiantian Gai & Mingshuo Cao & Francisco Chiclana & Zhen Zhang & Yucheng Dong & Enrique Herrera-Viedma & Jian Wu, 2023. "Consensus-trust Driven Bidirectional Feedback Mechanism for Improving Consensus in Social Network Large-group Decision Making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 32(1), pages 45-74, February.
    3. Jackson, Canek & Pascual, Rodrigo & Mac Cawley, Alejandro & Godoy, Sergio, 2023. "Product–service system negotiation in aircraft lease contracts with option of disagreement," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    4. Dacy Câmara Lobosco & Paulo Victor Rodrigues Carvalho, 2023. "Transforming Sensemaking and Perceptions on Meteorological Data to Inform Emergency Decision-Making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 32(2), pages 469-502, April.
    5. Elisa F. Long & Gilberto Montibeller & Jun Zhuang, 2022. "Health Decision Analysis: Evolution, Trends, and Emerging Topics," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 19(4), pages 255-264, December.
    6. Feifei Jin & Jinpei Liu & Ligang Zhou & Luis Martínez, 2021. "Consensus-Based Linguistic Distribution Large-Scale Group Decision Making Using Statistical Inference and Regret Theory," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(4), pages 813-845, August.

    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. Tang, Ming & Liao, Huchang, 2021. "From conventional group decision making to large-scale group decision making: What are the challenges and how to meet them in big data era? A state-of-the-art survey," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    2. Liu, Hu-Chen & Li, Zhaojun & Zhang, Jian-Qing & You, Xiao-Yue, 2018. "A large group decision making approach for dependence assessment in human reliability analysis," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 135-144.
    3. Giovanni Maggi & Massimo Morelli, 2006. "Self-Enforcing Voting in International Organizations," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(4), pages 1137-1158, September.
    4. Mattias K. Polborn & Matthias Messner, 2008. "The option to wait in collective decisions," 2008 Meeting Papers 397, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    5. Li, Yanhong & Kou, Gang & Li, Guangxu & Peng, Yi, 2022. "Consensus reaching process in large-scale group decision making based on bounded confidence and social network," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 303(2), pages 790-802.
    6. Modgil, Sachin & Gupta, Shivam & Sivarajah, Uthayasankar & Bhushan, Bharat, 2021. "Big data-enabled large-scale group decision making for circular economy: An emerging market context," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 166(C).
    7. Yin, Xuanpeng & Xu, Xuanhua & Pan, Bin, 2021. "Selection of Strategy for Large Group Emergency Decision-making based on Risk Measurement," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 208(C).
    8. Ulrich Erlenmaier & Hans Gersbach, 2001. "Flexible Majority Rules," CESifo Working Paper Series 464, CESifo.
    9. Xiaohong Chen & Weiwei Zhang & Xuanhua Xu & Wenzhi Cao, 2022. "Managing Group Confidence and Consensus in Intuitionistic Fuzzy Large Group Decision-Making Based on Social Media Data Mining," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 31(5), pages 995-1023, October.
    10. Chao, Xiangrui & Kou, Gang & Peng, Yi & Viedma, Enrique Herrera, 2021. "Large-scale group decision-making with non-cooperative behaviors and heterogeneous preferences: An application in financial inclusion," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 288(1), pages 271-293.
    11. Messner, Matthias & Polborn, Mattias K., 2012. "The option to wait in collective decisions and optimal majority rules," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(5), pages 524-540.
    12. Chenxi Zhang & Meng Zhao & Lichao Zhao & Qinfei Yuan, 2021. "A Consensus Model for Large-Scale Group Decision-Making Based on the Trust Relationship Considering Leadership Behaviors and Non-cooperative Behaviors," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 553-586, June.
    13. Johan Eyckmans & Michael Finus, 2006. "New roads to international environmental agreements: the case of global warming," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 7(4), pages 391-414, December.
    14. Simona Fabrizi & Steffen Lippert & Addison Pan & Matthew Ryan, 2022. "A theory of unanimous jury voting with an ambiguous likelihood," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 93(3), pages 399-425, October.
    15. Robbett, Andrea & Matthews, Peter Hans, 2018. "Partisan bias and expressive voting," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 107-120.
    16. Meirowitz, Adam, 2005. "Deliberative Democracy or Market Democracy: Designing Institutions to Aggregate Preferences and Information," Papers 03-28-2005, Princeton University, Research Program in Political Economy.
    17. Gabrielle Demange, 2018. "New electoral systems and old referendums," PSE Working Papers hal-01852206, HAL.
    18. Bhattacharya, Sourav & Duffy, John & Kim, Sun-Tak, 2014. "Compulsory versus voluntary voting: An experimental study," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 111-131.
    19. Lirong Xia, 2020. "How Likely Are Large Elections Tied?," Papers 2011.03791, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2021.
    20. Fifić, Mario & Gigerenzer, Gerd, 2014. "Are two interviewers better than one?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(8), pages 1771-1779.

    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:29:y:2020:i:5:d:10.1007_s10726-020-09684-0. 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.