Skip to main content
Log in

The Use of Ranking Veto Concept to Mitigate the Compensatory Effects of Additive Aggregation in Group Decisions on a Water Utility Automation Investment

  • Published:
Group Decision and Negotiation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The use of additive models for aggregating group decisions implies they have a compensatory effect in the process of aggregating all decision makers’ (DMs’) preferences. In this kind of model, the final result may produce some extremely undesirable alternatives for one or more DMs. Such alternatives may emerge with a higher ranking than desirable ones, thus generating conflicts and regrets. To overcome this problem the concept of ranking veto is introduced based on a reduction factor combined with the utility of the alternative in order to penalize conflicting alternatives and reduce disagreements in an additive model. A water utility problem was considered as a numerical application to illustrate the model. A decision group method based on MAUT, utility thresholds and a reduction factor is proposed to support group decision in selecting regions that will receive investments in automation over the next 4 years.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arrow K (1950) A difficulty in the concept of social welfare. J Polit Econ 58(4): 328–346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arrow KJ, Raynaud H (1986) Social choice and multicriterion decision making. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Arieh D, Easton T, Evans B (2008) Minimum cost consensus with quadratic cost functions. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part A Syst Hum 39(1): 210–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Arieh D, Easton T (2007) Multi-criteria group consensus under linear cost opinion elasticity. Decis Support Syst 43:713–721

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bose U, Paradice DB (1999) The effects of integrating cognitive feedback and multi-attribute utility-based multicriteria decision-making methods in GDSS. Group Decis Negot 8(2): 157–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler D et al (2003) SWARD: decision support processes for the UK water industry. J Manag Environ Quality 14(4): 444–459

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng C-B (2004) Group opinion aggregation based on a grading process: a method for constructing triangular fuzzy numbers. Comput Math Appl 48: 1619–1632

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dias LC, Clímaco JN (2005) Dealing with imprecise information in group multicriteria decisions: a methodology and a GDSS architecture. Eur J Oper Res 160(2): 291–307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • García-Lapresta JL (2008) Favoring consensus and penalizing disagreement in group decision making. J Adv Comput Intell Intell Inform 12(5): 416–421

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamouda L, Kilgour M, Hipel K (2004) Strength of preference in the graph model for conflict resolution. Group Decis Negot 13: 449–462

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herrera-Viedma E, Herrera F, Chiclana F (2002) A consensus model for multiperson decision making with different preference structures. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part A Syst Hum 32(3): 394–402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jabeur K, Martel J-M, Khélifa S (2004) A distance-based collective preorder integrating the relative importance of the group’s members. Group Decis Negot 13: 327–349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keeney RL, Raiffa H (1976) Decision with multiple objectives: preferences and value trade-offs. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeney RL, Kirkwood CW (1975) Group decision making using cardinal social welfare functions. Manag Sci 22: 430–437

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keeney RL (1976) A group preference axiomatization with cardinal utility. Manag Sci 23: 140–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morais D, de Almeida AT (2007) Group decision-making for leakage management strategy of water network. Resour Conserv Recycl 52: 441–459

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morais DC, de Almeida AT (2010) Water network rehabilitation: a group decision-making approach. Water SA 36(4): 487–794

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moulin H (1981) The proportional veto principle. Rev Econ Stud 48: 407–416

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munda G (2008) Social multi-criteria evaluation for a sustainable economy. Springer-Verlag, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Munda G (2009) A conflict analysis approach for illuminating distributional issues in sustainability policy. Eur J Oper Res 194: 307–322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peniwati K (2007) Criteria for evaluating group decision-making methods. Math Comput Model 46: 935–947

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pyne JC (2007) A balanced approach to automating small systems. Water Environ Technol 19(4): 18–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Ray T, Triantaphyllou E (1998) Evaluation of rankings with regard to the possible number of agreements and conflicts. Eur J Oper Res 106: 129–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reuck J, Klass D, Schmidenberg O (2004) Arbitrage possibilities in conflict situations. Group Decis Negot 13(5): 437–448

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds L (2004) Developments in control in the water industry. Comput Control Eng J 15(1): 38–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roy B, Slowinski R (2008) Handling effects of reinforced preference and counter-veto in credibility of outranking. Eur J Oper Res 188(1): 185–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silva VBS, Morais DC, Almeida AT (2010) A multicriteria group decision model to support watershed committees in Brazil. Water Resour Manag 24: 4075–4091

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tavana M, LoPinto F, Smither JW (2007) A hybrid distance-based ideal-seeking consensus ranking model. J Appl Math Decis Sci 11: 1–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas J-S, Durham B (2003) Integrated water resource management: looking at the whole picture. Desalination 156: 21–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vincke P (1992) Multicriteria decision-aid. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu Z (2009) An automatic approach to reaching consensus in multiple attribute group decision making. Comput Ind Eng 56: 1369–1374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu Z, Chen J (2008) Ordered weighted distance measure. J Syst Sci Syst Eng 17(4): 432–445

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adiel Teixeira de Almeida.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Daher, S.d.S.D., de Almeida, A.T. The Use of Ranking Veto Concept to Mitigate the Compensatory Effects of Additive Aggregation in Group Decisions on a Water Utility Automation Investment. Group Decis Negot 21, 185–204 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-011-9266-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-011-9266-2

Keywords

Navigation