IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v199y2009i2p459-467.html

A framework for participatory decision support using Pareto frontier visualization, goal identification and arbitration

Author

Listed:
  • Efremov, Roman
  • Insua, David Rios
  • Lotov, Alexander

Abstract

There is a growing interest in promoting participation of lay stakeholders in public decision-making processes, possibly with the aid of Internet-based systems. This implies supporting non-sophisticated users and, consequently, developing user-friendly, yet rigorous, participatory decision support methods. We outline a framework to develop such methods based on interactive Pareto frontier visualization combined with expression of preferences in terms of feasible goals and using feasible goal-based arbitration.

Suggested Citation

  • Efremov, Roman & Insua, David Rios & Lotov, Alexander, 2009. "A framework for participatory decision support using Pareto frontier visualization, goal identification and arbitration," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 199(2), pages 459-467, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:199:y:2009:i:2:p:459-467
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377-2217(08)00832-1
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Thomson, William, 1994. "Cooperative models of bargaining," Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, in: R.J. Aumann & S. Hart (ed.), Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 35, pages 1237-1284, Elsevier.
    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. Thierry Petit & Andrew C. Trapp, 2019. "Enriching Solutions to Combinatorial Problems via Solution Engineering," INFORMS Journal on Computing, INFORMS, vol. 31(3), pages 429-444, July.
    2. Gomez, J. & Insua, D. Rios & Alfaro, C., 2016. "A participatory budget model under uncertainty," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(1), pages 351-358.
    3. Roman V. Efremov & Alexander V. Lotov, 2014. "Multi-criteria Remote Asynchronous Group Decision Screening: An Experimental Study," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 31-48, January.
    4. Eduardo Fernández & Claudia Gómez-Santillán & Nelson Rangel-Valdez & Laura Cruz-Reyes, 2022. "Group Multi-Objective Optimization Under Imprecision and Uncertainty Using a Novel Interval Outranking Approach," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 31(5), pages 945-994, October.
    5. Zio, E. & Bazzo, R., 2011. "Level Diagrams analysis of Pareto Front for multiobjective system redundancy allocation," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 96(5), pages 569-580.
    6. Zhang, Hengjie & Dong, Yucheng & Chiclana, Francisco & Yu, Shui, 2019. "Consensus efficiency in group decision making: A comprehensive comparative study and its optimal design," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 275(2), pages 580-598.
    7. Walczak, Dariusz & Rutkowska, Aleksandra, 2017. "Project rankings for participatory budget based on the fuzzy TOPSIS method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 260(2), pages 706-714.
    8. Romero-Silva, Rodrigo & Shaaban, Sabry & Marsillac, Erika & Laarraf, Zouhair, 2021. "The impact of unequal processing time variability on reliable and unreliable merging line performance," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 235(C).
    9. Balderas, Fausto & Fernández, Eduardo & Cruz-Reyes, Laura & Gómez-Santillán, Claudia & Rangel-Valdez, Nelson, 2022. "Solving group multi-objective optimization problems by optimizing consensus through multi-criteria ordinal classification," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 297(3), pages 1014-1029.
    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. Tang, Ming & Liao, Huchang & Xu, Jiuping & Streimikiene, Dalia & Zheng, Xiaosong, 2020. "Adaptive consensus reaching process with hybrid strategies for large-scale group decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 282(3), pages 957-971.

    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. Izat B. Baybusinov & Enrico Maria Fenoaltea & Yi-Cheng Zhang, 2022. "Negotiation problem," Papers 2201.12619, arXiv.org.
    2. Lorenzo Bastianello & Marco LiCalzi, 2015. "Target-based solutions for Nash bargaining," Working Papers 5, Venice School of Management - Department of Management, Università Ca' Foscari Venezia.
    3. Alexis Garapin & Michel Hollard & Stéphane Robin & Bernard Ruffieux, 2000. "L'inefficacité d'une chaîne de monopoles : une étude expérimentale en situation de négociation répétée," Économie et Prévision, Programme National Persée, vol. 145(4), pages 1-18.
    4. José-Manuel Giménez-Gómez & António Osório & Josep E. Peris, 2015. "From Bargaining Solutions to Claims Rules: A Proportional Approach," Games, MDPI, vol. 6(1), pages 1-7, March.
    5. Naeve-Steinweg, Elisabeth, 2002. "Mechanisms supporting the Kalai-Smorodinsky solution," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 25-36, September.
    6. Rachmilevitch, Shiran, 2025. "Nash oligarchies," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    7. Lorenzo Bastianello & Marco LiCalzi, 2019. "The Probability to Reach an Agreement as a Foundation for Axiomatic Bargaining," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 87(3), pages 837-865, May.
    8. Geoffroy de Clippel, 2009. "Axiomatic Bargaining on Economic Enviornments with Lott," Working Papers 2009-5, Brown University, Department of Economics.
    9. Aköz, Kemal Kıvanç & Samsonov, Arseniy, 2025. "Information agreements," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 229(C).
    10. Jaume García Segarra & Miguel Ginés Vilar, 2011. "Weighted Proportional Losses Solution," ThE Papers 10/21, Department of Economic Theory and Economic History of the University of Granada..
    11. Fabio Galeotti & Maria Montero & Anders Poulsen, 2022. "The Attraction and Compromise Effects in Bargaining: Experimental Evidence," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(4), pages 2987-3007, April.
    12. Shiran Rachmilevitch, 2021. "Step-by-step negotiations and utilitarianism," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 50(2), pages 433-445, June.
    13. Forgo, F. & Szidarovszky, F., 2003. "On the relation between the Nash bargaining solution and the weighting method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 147(1), pages 108-116, May.
    14. Subrato Banerjee, 2020. "Correction to: Effect of reduced opportunities on bargaining outcomes: an experiment with status asymmetries," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 89(3), pages 347-347, October.
    15. Guillaume Rocheteau & Randall Wright & Cathy Zhang, 2018. "Corporate Finance and Monetary Policy," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 108(4-5), pages 1147-1186, April.
    16. Li, Chunding & Whalley, John, 2014. "China's potential future growth and gains from trade policy bargaining: Some numerical simulation results," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 65-78.
    17. Pita, Cristina & Torregrosa, Ramon J., 2003. "The concavity axiom in bilateral monopoly," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 80(2), pages 211-217, August.
    18. Shiran Rachmilevitch, 2021. "No individual priorities and the Nash bargaining solution," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 56(4), pages 855-863, May.
    19. Gomez, Juan Camilo, 2006. "Achieving efficiency with manipulative bargainers," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 254-263, November.
    20. Sebastián Lozano & Narges Soltani, 2020. "A modified discrete Raiffa approach for efficiency assessment and target setting," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 292(1), pages 71-95, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;

    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:eee:ejores:v:199:y:2009:i:2:p:459-467. 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.