IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jomega/v40y2012i1p42-52.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Group decision making on water resources based on analysis of individual rankings

Author

Listed:
  • Morais, Danielle C.
  • de Almeida, Adiel Teixeira

Abstract

In problems to do with managing water resources multiple decision makers are involved, each acting in their own right and using different value systems. In the literature on management science, several procedures are proposed in order to establish a collective preference based on the aggregation of different individual preferences. However, the well-known methods that focus on a single winner have some inconveniences that should be addressed. This paper is focused on a group decision making procedure based on the analysis of individual rankings with the aim of choosing an appropriate alternative for a water resources problem. This alternative is found to be the best compromise from the points of view of all actors involved in the decision problem. The structure of the method is set out as is its application to the water resources problem. A comparison with other methods is presented and discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Morais, Danielle C. & de Almeida, Adiel Teixeira, 2012. "Group decision making on water resources based on analysis of individual rankings," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 42-52, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:jomega:v:40:y:2012:i:1:p:42-52
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305048311000557
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    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. Peng, Yi & Kou, Gang & Wang, Guoxun & Shi, Yong, 2011. "FAMCDM: A fusion approach of MCDM methods to rank multiclass classification algorithms," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 677-689, December.
    2. Hatami-Marbini, Adel & Tavana, Madjid, 2011. "An extension of the Electre I method for group decision-making under a fuzzy environment," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 373-386, August.
    3. Tavana, M. & Kennedy, D. T. & Joglekar, P., 1996. "A group decision support framework for consensus ranking of technical manager candidates," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 24(5), pages 523-538, October.
    4. Lahdelma, Risto & Salminen, Pekka, 2009. "Prospect theory and stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis (SMAA)," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 961-971, October.
    5. Saari, Donald G., 1999. "Explaining All Three-Alternative Voting Outcomes," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 87(2), pages 313-355, August.
    6. Nurmi, Hannu, 1983. "Voting Procedures: A Summary Analysis," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(02), pages 181-208, April.
    7. Forman, Ernest & Peniwati, Kirti, 1998. "Aggregating individual judgments and priorities with the analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 108(1), pages 165-169, July.
    8. Smith, John H, 1973. "Aggregation of Preferences with Variable Electorate," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 41(6), pages 1027-1041, November.
    9. Brams, Steven J & Nagel, Jack H, 1991. "Approval Voting in Practice," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 71(1-2), pages 1-17, August.
    10. Kenneth J. Arrow, 1950. "A Difficulty in the Concept of Social Welfare," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 58, pages 328-328.
    11. Sawik, Tadeusz, 2010. "Single vs. multiple objective supplier selection in a make to order environment," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 38(3-4), pages 203-212, June.
    12. Jonathan Levin & Barry Nalebuff, 1995. "An Introduction to Vote-Counting Schemes," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 9(1), pages 3-26, Winter.
    13. Lahdelma, Risto & Makkonen, Simo & Salminen, Pekka, 2009. "Two ways to handle dependent uncertainties in multi-criteria decision problems," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 79-92, February.
    14. Franco, L. Alberto & Lord, Ewan, 2011. "Understanding multi-methodology: Evaluating the perceived impact of mixing methods for group budgetary decisions," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 362-372, June.
    15. Durbach, Ian N. & Stewart, Theodor J., 2009. "Using expected values to simplify decision making under uncertainty," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 312-330, April.
    16. Bose, Utpal & Davey, Anne M. & Olson, David L., 1997. "Multi-attribute utility methods in group decision making: Past applications and potential for inclusion in GDSS," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 25(6), pages 691-706, December.
    17. Xu, Zeshui, 2005. "Deviation measures of linguistic preference relations in group decision making," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 249-254, June.
    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. Pang, Jifang & Liang, Jiye, 2012. "Evaluation of the results of multi-attribute group decision-making with linguistic information," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 294-301.
    2. Fernandez, Eduardo & Olmedo, Rafael, 2013. "An outranking-based general approach to solving group multi-objective optimization problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 225(3), pages 497-506.
    3. Feng, Bo & Lai, Fujun, 2014. "Multi-attribute group decision making with aspirations: A case study," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 136-147.
    4. Gong, Zaiwu & Xu, Xiaoxia & Zhang, Huanhuan & Aytun Ozturk, U. & Herrera-Viedma, Enrique & Xu, Chao, 2015. "The consensus models with interval preference opinions and their economic interpretation," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 81-90.
    5. Verdecho, María-José & Alfaro-Saiz, Juan-Jose & Rodriguez-Rodriguez, Raul & Ortiz-Bas, Angel, 2012. "A multi-criteria approach for managing inter-enterprise collaborative relationships," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 249-263.
    6. repec:spr:grdene:v:21:y:2012:i:2:d:10.1007_s10726-011-9275-1 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Sun, Bingzhen & Ma, Weimin, 2015. "An approach to consensus measurement of linguistic preference relations in multi-attribute group decision making and application," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 83-92.
    8. Yu, Ming-Miin & Chern, Ching-Chin & Hsiao, Bo, 2013. "Human resource rightsizing using centralized data envelopment analysis: Evidence from Taiwan's Airports," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 119-130.
    9. repec:eee:reensy:v:137:y:2015:i:c:p:29-39 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Kadziński, Miłosz & Greco, Salvatore & Słowiński, Roman, 2013. "RUTA: A framework for assessing and selecting additive value functions on the basis of rank related requirements," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 41(4), pages 735-751.
    11. Tavares, L. Valadares, 2012. "An acyclic outranking model to support group decision making within organizations," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 40(6), pages 782-790.
    12. Ma, Li-Ching, 2016. "A new group ranking approach for ordinal preferences based on group maximum consensus sequences," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 251(1), pages 171-181.

    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:jomega:v:40:y:2012:i:1:p:42-52. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/375/description#description .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.