Soft Computing

, Volume 22, Issue 22, pp 7479–7490 | Cite as

Large-group risk dynamic emergency decision method based on the dual influence of preference transfer and risk preference

  • Xuanhua Xu
  • Bin PanEmail author
  • Yushan Yang


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 



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.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.


  1. Aczel J, Saaty TL (1983) Procedures for synthesizing ratio judgements. J Math Psychol 27(1):93–102MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bell DE (1982) Regret in decision making under uncertainty. Oper Res 30(5):961–981CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bell DE (1985) Disappointment in decision making under uncertainty. Oper Res 33(1):1–27MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. Han B, Zank H (2009) Additive utility in prospect theory. Manag Sci 55(5):863–873CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Harsanyi JC (1955) Cardinal welfare, individualistic ethics, and interpersonal comparisons of utility. J Polit Econ 63(4):309–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hu J, Yang L (2011) Dynamic stochastic multi-criteria decision making method based on cumulative prospect theory and set pair analysis. Sys Eng Procedia 1(1):432–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jiang P (2011) Emergency management of emergencies. National School of Administration Press, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  13. Jou RC, Chen KH (2013) An application of cumulative prospect theory to freeway drivers route choice behaviours. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract 49:123–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kahneman D, Tversky AN (1979) Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47(2):263–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kahneman D, Tversky A (1992) Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty. J Risk Uncertain 5(4):297–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Krohling RA, Souza TTM (2011) Two examples of application of TOPSIS to decision making problems. Salesian J Inf Syst 8:31–35Google Scholar
  17. Liu Y, Fan ZP, Zhang Y (2014) Risk decision analysis in emergency response: a method based on cumulative prospect theory. Comput Oper Res 42(2):75–82MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Loomes G, Sugden R (1982) Regret theory: an alternative theory of rational choice under uncertainty. Econ J 92:805–824CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Loomes G, Sugden R (1986) Disappointment and dynamic consistency in choice under uncertainty. Rev Econ Stud 53(2):271–282MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Saaty TL (1980) Multicriteria decision making: the analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Schmidt U, Zank H (2002) Risk aversion in cumulative prospect theory. Gen Inf 54(1):208–216Google Scholar
  22. 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
  23. Shi Y, Cui X, Li D (2015) Discrete-time behavioral portfolio selection under cumulative prospect theory. J Econ Dyn Control 61:283–302MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Tanino T (1984) Fuzzy preference orderings in group decision making. Fuzzy Sets Syst 12:117–131MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wang L, Zhang ZX, Wang YM (2015) A prospect theory-based interval dynamic reference point method for emergency decision making. Expert Syst Appl 42(23):9379–9388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Xu Z, Da Q (2001) The ranking method of complementary judgement matrix based on reciprocal judgment matrix of three kinds. J Southeast Univ 1(6):97–99Google Scholar
  27. Xu X, Zhang L, Chen X (2012) Cluster grouping method based on attribute binary relation under fuzzy preference. Syst Eng Electron 34(11):2312–2317Google Scholar
  28. Yager RR, Rybalov A (1996) Uninorm aggregation operators. Fuzzy Sets Syst 80(1):111–120MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Hunan University of CommerceChangshaChina
  2. 2.School of BusinessCentral South UniversityChangshaChina

Personalised recommendations