IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v16y2019i21p4088-d279692.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Novel Preference Elicitation Technique Based on a Graph Model and Its Application to a Brownfield Redevelopment Conflict in China

Author

Listed:
  • Shinan Zhao

    (College of Economics and Management, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing 211106, China)

  • Haiyan Xu

    (College of Economics and Management, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing 211106, China)

Abstract

Disputes are very common and pervasive in brownfield redevelopment projects, in which multiple stakeholders or decision-makers (DMs) strategically interact with each other with a conflict of interest. The preference information of DMs involved plays a vital role in identifying possible outcomes or resolutions for resolving a tough brownfield conflict. In this research, a novel preference ranking technique is purposefully proposed within the graph model for conflict resolution (GMCR) paradigm to effectively and accurately garner DMs’ actual preferences, in which states are ranked according to their similarities and closeness to the most and least preferred states instead of subjective option statements or weights in traditional preference ranking methods. Finally, a real-world brownfield conflict which occurred in China is utilized to show how the proposed preference ranking method can be applied for conveniently obtaining the true preference information of DMs and strategically determining the equilibria of a given dispute. The case study indicates that the novel preference elicitation approach is more objective and reasonable than the traditional option prioritization method. Moreover, there exists an equilibrium which can provide strategic advice and meaningful insights for addressing the brownfield conflict.

Suggested Citation

  • Shinan Zhao & Haiyan Xu, 2019. "A Novel Preference Elicitation Technique Based on a Graph Model and Its Application to a Brownfield Redevelopment Conflict in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(21), pages 1-14, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:16:y:2019:i:21:p:4088-:d:279692
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/21/4088/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/21/4088/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vincenzo Del Giudice & Pierfrancesco De Paola & Torrieri Francesca & Peter J. Nijkamp & Aviad Shapira, 2019. "Real Estate Investment Choices and Decision Support Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-18, June.
    2. Zhao, Shinan & Xu, Haiyan & Hipel, Keith W. & Fang, Liping, 2019. "Mixed stabilities for analyzing opponents’ heterogeneous behavior within the graph model for conflict resolution," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 277(2), pages 621-632.
    3. Han, Qingye & Zhu, Yuming & Ke, Ginger Y. & Hipel, Keith W., 2019. "Public private partnership in brownfield remediation projects in China: Identification and structure analysis of risks," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 87-104.
    4. Kedong Yin & Li Yu & Xuemei Li, 2017. "An Improved Graph Model for Conflict Resolution Based on Option Prioritization and Its Application," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-14, October.
    5. Jing Yu & Ling-Ling Pei, 2018. "Investigation of a Brownfield Conflict Considering the Strength of Preferences," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-11, February.
    6. Qingye Han & Yuming Zhu & Ginger Y. Ke & Hongli Lin, 2019. "A Two-Stage Decision Framework for Resolving Brownfield Conflicts," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(6), pages 1-19, March.
    7. Luai Hamouda & D. Marc Kilgour & Keith W. Hipel, 2004. "Strength of Preference in the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 13(5), pages 449-462, September.
    8. Sandra Alker & Victoria Joy & Peter Roberts & Nathan Smith, 2000. "The Definition of Brownfield," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(1), pages 49-69.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. M. Abul Bashar & Keith W. Hipel & D. Marc Kilgour & Amer Obeidi, 2018. "Interval fuzzy preferences in the graph model for conflict resolution," Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 287-315, September.
    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. 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.

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Zhao, Shinan & Xu, Haiyan & Hipel, Keith W. & Fang, Liping, 2019. "Mixed stabilities for analyzing opponents’ heterogeneous behavior within the graph model for conflict resolution," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 277(2), pages 621-632.
    4. Qingye Han & Yuming Zhu & Ginger Y. Ke & Hongli Lin, 2019. "A Two-Stage Decision Framework for Resolving Brownfield Conflicts," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(6), pages 1-19, March.
    5. Jing Yu & Ling-Ling Pei, 2018. "Investigation of a Brownfield Conflict Considering the Strength of Preferences," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-11, February.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Ning Zhang & Zaiwu Gong & Kedong Yin & Yuhong Wang, 2018. "Special Issue “Decision Models in Green Growth and Sustainable Development”," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-8, May.
    9. Shawei He, 2019. "Coalition Analysis in Basic Hierarchical Graph Model for Conflict Resolution with Application to Climate Change Governance Disputes," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 28(5), pages 879-906, October.
    10. 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.
    11. Ahmad, Naveed & Zhu, Yuming & Hongli, Lin & Karamat, Jawad & Waqas, Muhammad & Taskheer Mumtaz, Syed Muhammad, 2020. "Mapping the obstacles to brownfield redevelopment adoption in developing economies: Pakistani Perspective," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    12. Ahmad, Naveed & Zhu, Yuming & Ullah, Zia & Iqbal, Muzaffar & Hussain, Kramat & Ahmed, Rahil Irfan, 2021. "Sustainable solutions to facilitate brownfield redevelopment projects in emerging countries – Pakistani scenario," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    13. J.W.R. Whitehand & N.J. Morton, 2006. "The Fringe-belt Phenomenon and Socioeconomic Change," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 43(11), pages 2047-2066, October.
    14. Marja Elsinga & Joris Hoekstra & Mohamad Sedighi & Behnam Taebi, 2020. "Toward Sustainable and Inclusive Housing: Underpinning Housing Policy as Design for Values," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-15, March.
    15. Song, Yang & Lyu, Yang & Qian, Sitong & Zhang, Xinjia & Lin, Huiying & Wang, Shijun, 2022. "Identifying urban candidate brownfield sites using multi-source data: The case of Changchun City, China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    16. Khalifa Mohammed Al-Sobai & Shaligram Pokharel & Galal M. Abdella, 2020. "Perspectives on the Capabilities for the Selection of Strategic Projects," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-20, October.
    17. Anna Alberini & Dennis Guignet, 2008. "Voluntary Cleanups and Redevelopment Potential: Lessons from Baltimore, Maryland," Working Papers 2008.87, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    18. 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.
    19. Oppio, Alessandra & Dell’Ovo, Marta & Torrieri, Francesca & Miebs, Grzegorz & Kadziński, Miłosz, 2020. "Understanding the drivers of Urban Development Agreements with the rough set approach and robust decision rules," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    20. Meg Holden & Andy Scerri & Azadeh Hadizadeh Esfahani, 2015. "Justifying Redevelopment ‘Failures' Within Urban ‘Success Stories': Dispute, Compromise, and a New Test of Urbanity," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(3), pages 451-470, May.

    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:jijerp:v:16:y:2019:i:21:p:4088-:d:279692. 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.