IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v11y2018i11p3027-d180486.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Multi-Attribute Group-Decision on a Construction Diversion Scheme for Hydropower Projects Based on Perception Utility

Author

Listed:
  • Dawei Liu

    (State Key Laboratory of Water Resources and Hydropower Engineering Science, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430072, China)

  • Zhigen Hu

    (State Key Laboratory of Water Resources and Hydropower Engineering Science, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430072, China)

  • Wencheng Guo

    (School of Hydropower and Information Engineering, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430074, China)

Abstract

The multi-attribute and group-decision problem in the selection of a construction diversion scheme for large hydropower projects often involves multi-decision subjects and schemes. Each scheme includes multiple attributes, and the attribute values and weights are multi-attribute group decision-making problems with interval numbers. In this study, a new method for solving the multi-attribute group-decision problem is proposed by integrating regret theory, negotiation gathering theory, and the Monte Carlo simulation technique. Firstly, decision-makers’ comprehensive perception utility for each scheme is calculated based on the regret theory. Then, non-uniform and fuzzy opinion of different decision subjects are negotiated and gathered, and negotiation intervals of the attribute weights are calculated through group negotiation gathering theory. Moreover, fuzzy complementary judgment matrixes describing an excellent degree of the diversion schemes are obtained by conducting Monte Carlo simulations. Finally, the alternative diversion schemes are sorted in terms of their priorities, and the reliability of the sorting procedure is confirmed. The multi-attribute group-decision problem in the selection of a construction diversion scheme for Jinping I Hydropower Station is effectively solved by the proposed method. The proposed method is reliable and may significantly contribute to engineering decision-making.

Suggested Citation

  • Dawei Liu & Zhigen Hu & Wencheng Guo, 2018. "Multi-Attribute Group-Decision on a Construction Diversion Scheme for Hydropower Projects Based on Perception Utility," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-12, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:11:y:2018:i:11:p:3027-:d:180486
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/11/11/3027/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/11/11/3027/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chib, Siddhartha & Greenberg, Edward, 1996. "Markov Chain Monte Carlo Simulation Methods in Econometrics," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 12(3), pages 409-431, August.
    2. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    3. Loomes, Graham & Sugden, Robert, 1982. "Regret Theory: An Alternative Theory of Rational Choice under Uncertainty," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 92(368), pages 805-824, December.
    4. Bryson, Noel & Mobolurin, Ayodele, 1997. "An action learning evaluation procedure for multiple criteria decision making problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 96(2), pages 379-386, January.
    5. Dhami, Sanjit & al-Nowaihi, Ali, 2007. "Why do people pay taxes? Prospect theory versus expected utility theory," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 171-192, September.
    6. David E. Bell, 1982. "Regret in Decision Making under Uncertainty," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 30(5), pages 961-981, October.
    7. George Wu & Richard Gonzalez, 1996. "Curvature of the Probability Weighting Function," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(12), pages 1676-1690, December.
    8. Drazen Prelec, 1998. "The Probability Weighting Function," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 66(3), pages 497-528, May.
    9. Ritov, Ilana, 1996. "Probability of Regret: Anticipation of Uncertainty Resolution in Choice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 66(2), pages 228-236, May.
    10. Zeelenberg, M., 1999. "Anticipated regret, expected feedback and behavioral decision-making," Other publications TiSEM 38371d1b-31fd-45b0-860f-b, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    11. Carlos Laciana & Elke Weber, 2008. "Correcting expected utility for comparisons between alternative outcomes: A unified parameterization of regret and disappointment," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 1-17, February.
    12. Amin Rasekh & Abbas Afshar & Mohammad Afshar, 2010. "Risk-Cost Optimization of Hydraulic Structures: Methodology and Case Study," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 24(11), pages 2833-2851, September.
    13. Michael Kilka & Martin Weber, 2001. "What Determines the Shape of the Probability Weighting Function Under Uncertainty?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(12), pages 1712-1726, December.
    14. Nicholas Barberis & Ming Huang & Tano Santos, 2001. "Prospect Theory and Asset Prices," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 116(1), pages 1-53.
    15. Madlener, Reinhard & Antunes, Carlos Henggeler & Dias, Luis C., 2009. "Assessing the performance of biogas plants with multi-criteria and data envelopment analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 197(3), pages 1084-1094, September.
    16. al-Nowaihi, Ali & Bradley, Ian & Dhami, Sanjit, 2008. "A note on the utility function under prospect theory," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 99(2), pages 337-339, 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. Zida Song & Quan Liu & Zhigen Hu & Chunsheng Zhang & Jinming Ren & Zhexin Wang & Jianhai Tian, 2020. "Construction Diversion Risk Assessment for Hydropower Development on Sediment-Rich Rivers," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-20, February.
    2. Ahmad Sharafati & Siyamak Doroudi & Shamsuddin Shahid & Ali Moridi, 2021. "A Novel Stochastic Approach for Optimization of Diversion System Dimension by Considering Hydrological and Hydraulic Uncertainties," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 35(11), pages 3649-3677, 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. Özalp Özer & Yanchong Zheng, 2016. "Markdown or Everyday Low Price? The Role of Behavioral Motives," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(2), pages 326-346, February.
    2. Moshe Levy, 2022. "An evolutionary explanation of the Allais paradox," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 32(5), pages 1545-1574, November.
    3. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten & Meyer, Steffen & Hackethal, Andreas, 2019. "Taming models of prospect theory in the wild? Estimation of Vlcek and Hens (2011)," SAFE Working Paper Series 146, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE, revised 2019.
    4. Laurent Denant-Boemont & Olivier L’Haridon, 2013. "La rationalité à l'épreuve de l'économie comportementale," Revue française d'économie, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 0(2), pages 35-89.
    5. Andrea C. Hupman & Jay Simon, 2023. "The Legacy of Peter Fishburn: Foundational Work and Lasting Impact," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 20(1), pages 1-15, March.
    6. Thomas Epper & Helga Fehr-Duda, 2012. "The missing link: unifying risk taking and time discounting," ECON - Working Papers 096, Department of Economics - University of Zurich, revised Oct 2018.
    7. Phillips Peter J. & Pohl Gabriela, 2018. "The Deferral of Attacks: SP/A Theory as a Model of Terrorist Choice when Losses Are Inevitable," Open Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 1(1), pages 71-85, February.
    8. Rachel J. Huang & Alexander Muermann & Larry Y. Tzeng, 2016. "Hidden Regret In Insurance Markets," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 83(1), pages 181-216, January.
    9. Jeeva Somasundaram & Enrico Diecidue, 2017. "Regret theory and risk attitudes," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 55(2), pages 147-175, December.
    10. Maik Dierkes & Jan Krupski & Sebastian Schroen & Philipp Sibbertsen, 2024. "Volatility-dependent probability weighting and the dynamics of the pricing kernel puzzle," Review of Derivatives Research, Springer, vol. 27(1), pages 1-35, April.
    11. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Olivier L’Haridon & Horst Zank, 2010. "Separating curvature and elevation: A parametric probability weighting function," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 41(1), pages 39-65, August.
    12. Foster, Gigi & Frijters, Paul & Schaffner, Markus & Torgler, Benno, 2018. "Expectation formation in an evolving game of uncertainty: New experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 379-405.
    13. Sugden, Robert & Wang, Mengjie & Zizzo, Daniel John, 2019. "Take it or leave it: Experimental evidence on the effect of time-limited offers on consumer behaviour," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 168(C), pages 1-23.
    14. Olivier Chanel & Graciela Chichilnisky, 2009. "The influence of fear in decisions: Experimental evidence," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 39(3), pages 271-298, December.
    15. Alarie, Yves, 2000. "L’importance de la procédure dans les choix de loteries," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 76(3), pages 321-340, septembre.
    16. Pedro Bordalo & Nicola Gennaioli & Andrei Shleifer, 2013. "Salience and Consumer Choice," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 121(5), pages 803-843.
    17. Sanjit Dhami & Narges Hajimoladarvish, 2020. "Mental Accounting, Loss Aversion, and Tax Evasion: Theory and Evidence," CESifo Working Paper Series 8606, CESifo.
    18. Aluma Dembo & Shachar Kariv & Matthew Polisson & John Quah, 2021. "Ever since Allais," IFS Working Papers W21/15, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    19. Rick Harbaugh, 2005. "Prospect Theory or Skill Signaling?," Working Papers 2005-06, Indiana University, Kelley School of Business, Department of Business Economics and Public Policy.
    20. Amedeo Piolatto & Matthew D. Rablen, 2017. "Prospect theory and tax evasion: a reconsideration of the Yitzhaki puzzle," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 82(4), pages 543-565, April.

    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:gam:jeners:v:11:y:2018:i:11:p:3027-:d:180486. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.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.