IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/grdene/v14y2005i6d10.1007_s10726-005-9003-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Integrating Uncertain Preferences into Status Quo Analysis with Applications to an Environmental Conflict

Author

Listed:
  • Kevin W. Li

    (University of Windsor)

  • Keith W. Hipel

    (University of Waterloo)

  • D. Marc Kilgour

    (Wilfrid Laurier University)

  • Donald Noakes

    (Thompson River University)

Abstract

An algorithm is put forward to conduct status quo analysis when preference uncertainty exists for at least one decision maker (DM) in a strategic conflict. This research integrates into a unified framework two recent expansions of the graph model for conflict resolution, preference uncertainty and status quo analysis. Both of these developments enhance the applicability of the graph model, preference uncertainty by accommodating uncertainty in DMs' preferences and status quo analysis by addressing the dynamics of conflict. The combination of preference uncertainty and status quo analysis improves the flexibility of the graph model in both modelling and analysis. A new model of an environmental conflict is analyzed to demonstrate how the new algorithm can be applied.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:14:y:2005:i:6:d:10.1007_s10726-005-9003-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s10726-005-9003-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10726-005-9003-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10726-005-9003-9?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. K W Li & D M Kilgour & K W Hipel, 2005. "Status quo analysis in the graph model for conflict resolution," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 56(6), pages 699-707, 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. 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.
    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. 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.
    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. 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.
    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. 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.

    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. Peng, Benhong & Zhao, Yinyin & Elahi, Ehsan & Wan, Anxia, 2023. "Can third-party market cooperation solve the dilemma of emissions reduction? A case study of energy investment project conflict analysis in the context of carbon neutrality," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 264(C).
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Keith W. Hipel & Amer Obeidi, 2005. "Trade versus the environment: Strategic settlement from a systems engineering perspective," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(3), pages 211-233, September.
    5. 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.
    6. Giannini Italino Alves Vieira & Leandro Chaves Rêgo, 2020. "Berge Solution Concepts in the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(1), pages 103-125, February.
    7. Kevin W. Li & Jason K. Levy & P. Buckley, 2009. "Enhancing National Security and Energy Security in the Post-911 Era: Group Decision Support for Strategic Policy Analysis under Conditions of Conflict," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 18(4), pages 369-386, July.
    8. Yasir M. Aljefri & Liping Fang & Keith W. Hipel & Kaveh Madani, 2019. "Strategic Analyses of the Hydropolitical Conflicts Surrounding the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 28(2), pages 305-340, April.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Peng Xu & Haiyan Xu & Ginger Y. Ke, 2018. "Integrating an Option-Oriented Attitude Analysis into Investigating the Degree of Stabilities in Conflict Resolution," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 27(6), pages 981-1010, December.
    12. 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.
    13. Xu, Haiyan & Marc Kilgour, D. & Hipel, Keith W. & Kemkes, Graeme, 2010. "Using matrices to link conflict evolution and resolution in a graph model," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 207(1), pages 318-329, November.
    14. Haiyan Xu & D. Marc Kilgour & Keith W. Hipel, 2011. "Matrix Representation of Conflict Resolution in Multiple-Decision-Maker Graph Models with Preference Uncertainty," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 20(6), pages 755-779, November.

    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:spr:grdene:v:14:y:2005:i:6:d:10.1007_s10726-005-9003-9. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.