IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v257y2017i3p919-932.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A general hierarchical graph model for conflict resolution with application to greenhouse gas emission disputes between USA and China

Author

Listed:
  • He, Shawei
  • Marc Kilgour, D.
  • Hipel, Keith W.

Abstract

The general hierarchical graph model, a significant expansion of the graph model for conflict resolution methodology, is designed to analyze interrelated conflicts with hierarchical structures. In a general hierarchical graph model, there are common decision makers, who take part in all related subconflicts, and local decision makers, who participate in only one subconflict. In this paper, preference structures for decision makers in a hierarchical graph model are established, and theorems are developed that elucidate the relationship between stabilities in the overall (hierarchical) model and stabilities in the component submodels. To illustrate, the hierarchical graph model is applied to greenhouse gas emission disputes between USA and China, where local decision makers in the USA are the two parties in Congress, and local decision makers in China are state-owned energy companies. The stability results suggest potential strategic resolutions of bilateral disputes, and how parties can attain them.

Suggested Citation

  • He, Shawei & Marc Kilgour, D. & Hipel, Keith W., 2017. "A general hierarchical graph model for conflict resolution with application to greenhouse gas emission disputes between USA and China," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 257(3), pages 919-932.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:257:y:2017:i:3:p:919-932
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2016.08.014
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221716306294
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ejor.2016.08.014?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. 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.
    2. DeCanio, Stephen J. & Fremstad, Anders, 2013. "Game theory and climate diplomacy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 177-187.
    3. Vaillancourt, Kathleen & Waaub, Jean-Philippe, 2004. "Equity in international greenhouse gases abatement scenarios: A multicriteria approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 153(2), pages 489-505, March.
    4. Stephen C. Peck & Thomas J. Teisberg, 1999. "CO2 Emissions Control Agreements: Incentives for Regional Participation," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Special I), pages 367-390.
    5. Kaveh Madani & Keith Hipel, 2011. "Non-Cooperative Stability Definitions for Strategic Analysis of Generic Water Resources Conflicts," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 25(8), pages 1949-1977, June.
    6. Parkash Chander & Henry Tulkens, 2006. "A Core-Theoretic Solution for the Design of Cooperative Agreements on Transfrontier Pollution," Springer Books, in: Parkash Chander & Jacques Drèze & C. Knox Lovell & Jack Mintz (ed.), Public goods, environmental externalities and fiscal competition, chapter 0, pages 176-193, Springer.
    7. Gvozdeva, Tatiana & Hameed, Ali & Slinko, Arkadii, 2013. "Weightedness and structural characterization of hierarchical simple games," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 65(3), pages 181-189.
    8. Forgo, Ferenc & Fulop, Janos & Prill, Maria, 2005. "Game theoretic models for climate change negotiations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 160(1), pages 252-267, January.
    9. Mark Walker & John Wooders, 2001. "Minimax Play at Wimbledon," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(5), pages 1521-1538, December.
    10. S. L. George, 1973. "Optimal Strategy in Tennis: A Simple Probabilistic Model," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 22(1), pages 97-104, March.
    11. Ciscar, Juan Carlos & Soria, Antonio, 2002. "Prospective analysis of beyond Kyoto climate policy: a sequential game framework," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(15), pages 1327-1335, December.
    12. J Brimberg & N Mladenovic & S Salhi, 2004. "The multi-source Weber problem with constant opening cost," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 55(6), pages 640-646, June.
    13. Georgopoulou, E. & Sarafidis, Y. & Mirasgedis, S. & Zaimi, S. & Lalas, D. P., 2003. "A multiple criteria decision-aid approach in defining national priorities for greenhouse gases emissions reduction in the energy sector," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 146(1), pages 199-215, April.
    14. Hämäläinen, Raimo P. & Luoma, Jukka & Saarinen, Esa, 2013. "On the importance of behavioral operational research: The case of understanding and communicating about dynamic systems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 228(3), pages 623-634.
    15. Stuart Arthur Harris (ed.), 2010. "Global Warming," Books, IntechOpen, number 818, January-J.
    16. Courtois, Pierre & Tazdaït, Tarik, 2007. "Games of influence in climate change negotiations: Modelling interactions," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 204(3), pages 301-314.
    17. Madeleine Heyward, 2007. "Equity and international climate change negotiations: a matter of perspective," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(6), pages 518-534, November.
    18. 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.
    19. Mingers, John & White, Leroy, 2010. "A review of the recent contribution of systems thinking to operational research and management science," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 207(3), pages 1147-1161, December.
    20. D. Marc Kilgour & Keith W. Hipel, 2005. "The Graph Model for Conflict Resolution: Past, Present, and Future," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 14(6), pages 441-460, 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. 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.
    2. Leandro Chaves Rêgo & France E. G. Oliveira, 2020. "Higher-order Sequential Stabilities in the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution for Bilateral Conflicts," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(4), pages 601-626, August.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Sean B. Walker & Keith W. Hipel, 2017. "Strategy, Complexity and Cooperation: The Sino-American Climate Regime," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(5), pages 997-1027, September.
    7. Samaniego Rascón, Danyela & Ferreira, Almerindo D. & Gameiro da Silva, Manuel, 2017. "Cumulative and momentary skin exposures to solar radiation in central receiver solar systems," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 336-349.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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. Chen, W.T. & Li, Y.P. & Huang, G.H. & Chen, X. & Li, Y.F., 2010. "A two-stage inexact-stochastic programming model for planning carbon dioxide emission trading under uncertainty," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 87(3), pages 1033-1047, March.
    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. Pournabi, Nima & Janatrostami, Somaye & Ashrafzadeh, Afshin & Mohammadi, Kourosh, 2021. "Resolution of Internal conflicts for conservation of the Hour Al-Azim wetland using AHP-SWOT and game theory approach," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Wang, Yong & Li, Lin, 2016. "Critical peak electricity pricing for sustainable manufacturing: Modeling and case studies," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 175(C), pages 40-53.
    7. Thompson, James P. & Howick, Susan & Belton, Valerie, 2016. "Critical Learning Incidents in system dynamics modelling engagements," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 945-958.
    8. 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.
    9. Ciardiello, F. & Genovese, A. & Simpson, A., 2019. "Pollution responsibility allocation in supply networks: A game-theoretic approach and a case study," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 217(C), pages 211-217.
    10. Augusto Getirana & Valéria de Fátima Malta, 2010. "Investigating Strategies of an Irrigation Conflict," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 24(12), pages 2893-2916, September.
    11. Forgo, Ferenc & Fulop, Janos & Prill, Maria, 2005. "Game theoretic models for climate change negotiations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 160(1), pages 252-267, January.
    12. Felipe Costa Araujo & Alexandre Bevilacqua Leoneti, 2020. "Evaluating the Stability of the Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Regulatory Framework in Brazil," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(1), pages 143-156, February.
    13. Ely, Jeffrey & Gauriot, Romain & Page, Lionel, 2017. "Do agents maximise? Risk taking on first and second serves in tennis," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 135-142.
    14. Stephen Harwood, 2021. "Introducing the VIPLAN Methodology (with VSM) for Handling Messy Situations – Nine Lessons," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 34(6), pages 635-668, December.
    15. Fuentes-Albero, Cristina & Rubio, Santiago J., 2010. "Can international environmental cooperation be bought?," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 202(1), pages 255-264, April.
    16. Sean B. Walker & Keith W. Hipel, 2017. "Strategy, Complexity and Cooperation: The Sino-American Climate Regime," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(5), pages 997-1027, September.
    17. Courtois, Pierre & Tazdaït, Tarik, 2007. "Games of influence in climate change negotiations: Modelling interactions," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 204(3), pages 301-314.
    18. Meraj Sohrabi & Zeynab Banoo Ahani Amineh & Mohammad Hossein Niksokhan & Hossein Zanjanian, 2023. "A framework for optimal water allocation considering water value, strategic management and conflict resolution," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 1582-1613, February.
    19. Axel Anderson & Jeremy Rosen & John Rust & Kin-Ping Wong, 2021. "Disequilibrium Play in Tennis," Working Papers gueconwpa~21-21-07, Georgetown University, Department of Economics.
    20. Meinard, Y. & Cailloux, O., 2020. "On justifying the norms underlying decision support," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 285(3), pages 1002-1010.

    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:257:y:2017:i:3:p:919-932. 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.