Decision-makers (DMs) usually encounter the problem of preference transfer when making decisions about emergencies in a complex environment. We propose a new method for dynamic emergency decision-making for large-group risk based on cumulative prospect theory (CPT). First, the preference judgment matrix is used to aggregate the DMs’ preferences in different event states. Second, because of the complexity of the number of decisions proposed by a large group, a clustering method is used to cluster the preferences of the decision-making group and obtain a number of different aggregations with corresponding weights. Then, given that the risk preferences of the DMs affect the decision result, CPT is used to calculate the overall outlook value for large-group decision-making. Finally, DMs need to adjust the preference judgment matrix according to changes in event states. After several stages of adjustment, the Markov chain for the current development state and the DMs’ preference transfer matrix are obtained. The optimal scheme for the current state is given as a combination of the preference transfer matrix and the overall outlook value for the large group. Using this method, DMs can obtain the best scheme for different states in advance and make an emergency plan to reduce the risk of preference transfer. A case study is used to illustrate the rationality and effectiveness of the proposed method.
Large group DMs’ preference transfer Risk Emergency decision
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
The authors would like to thank the editors and anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and suggestions. This study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation in China (Nos. 71671189, 71790615, 71431006), Innovation-driven Program of Central South University (2015CX010), Mobile E-business Collaborative Innovation Center of in Hunan Province and Key Laboratory of Hunan Province for mobile business intelligence, Key program for Financial Research Institute Foundation of Wenzhou University.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
We declare that we have no financial and personal relationships with other people or organizations that can inappropriately influence our work, there is no professional or other personal interest of any nature or kind in any product, service and/or company that could be construed as influencing the position presented in, or the review of, the manuscript entitled.
This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.
Bocquého G, Jacquet F, Reynaud A (2014) Expected utility or prospect theory maximisers? assessing farmers’ risk behaviour from field-experiment data. Eur Rev Agric Econ 41(1):135–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen J, Zhong PA, Xu B et al (2015) Risk analysis for real-time flood control operation of a reservoir. J Water Resour Plan Manag 141(8):1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fan ZP, Li YH, Zhang Y (2015) Generating project risk response strategies based on CBR: a case study. Expert Syst Appl 42(6):2870–2883CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gao H, Barbier G, Goolsby R et al (2011) Harnessing the crowdsourcing power of social media for disaster relief. IEEE Intell Syst 26(3):10–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gao J, Li M, Liu H (2015) Generalized ordered weighted utility averaging-hyperbolic absolute risk aversion operators and their applications to group decision making. Eur J Oper Res 243(1):258–270MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saaty TL (1980) Multicriteria decision making: the analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
Schmidt U, Zank H (2002) Risk aversion in cumulative prospect theory. Gen Inf 54(1):208–216Google Scholar
Shen H, Zhao J, Huang WW (2008) Mission-critical group decision-making: solving the problem of decision preference change in group decision-making using Markov chain model. J Glob Inf Manag 16(2):35–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shi Y, Cui X, Li D (2015) Discrete-time behavioral portfolio selection under cumulative prospect theory. J Econ Dyn Control 61:283–302MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zook M, Graham M, Shelton T et al (2010) Volunteered geographic information and crowdsourcing disaster relief: a case study of the Haitian earthquake. World Medical Health Policy 2(2):7–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar