Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Quantitative Analysis of Conflict-of-Interest Structures in Consensus-Building Process

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Simulation and Gaming for Social Impact (ISAGA 2022)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 13622))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 204 Accesses

Abstract

Public works projects are required to actively promote public participation from the conceptual stage, but the technology to support consensus-building has not been sufficiently established, and as a result, work related to consensus-building has been avoided. The conflict-of-interest structure is an important element in understanding the characteristics of the consensus-building process. In this paper, we quantitatively and comprehensively analyzed the relationship between the conflict-of-interest structure and the consensus-building process. The conflict-of-interest structure was quantitatively expressed by defining the conflict-of-interest degree using the sum of profits difference squared, and an agent-based simulation was used to conduct a comprehensive analysis. Drama theory was used to model the consensus-building process, and gaming simulation was used to identify parameters of the agents’ behavior. The results of quantitative and exhaustive experiments using agent-based simulations, incorporating the behavioral models identified in the gaming simulations, showed that the conflict-of-interest structure is an indicator that characterizes the consensus-building process.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, Japan. Guidelines for Public Participation Procedures in the Conceptual Phase of Public Works Projects under the Jurisdiction of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (in Japanese) (2003). https://www.mlit.go.jp/kisha/kisha03/01/010630/0630-2.pdf. Accessed 14 June 2022

  2. Seino, S., Uda, T., Hoshigami, Y.: Problems and improvement measures for consensus-building in public works (in Japanese). J. Coastal Zone Stud. 18(4), 101–107 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ninomiya, H.: Drama-theoretical analysis of consensus-building process in public infrastructure development (in Japanese). Doboku Gakkai Ronbunshu F 6(1), 101–116 (2006). https://doi.org/10.2208/jscejf.62.101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Susskind, L., Mckearnan, S., Larmer, J.T.: The Consensus-Building Handbook a Comprehensive Guide to Reaching Agreement. SAGE Publications, Inc. (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Yamaguchi, S., Miura, R., Suzuki, A., Hayakawa, Y.: A Study on Advancement of Consensus-building Methods in Social Capital Improvement (in Japanese). National Research Institute Annual Report, pp. 90–91 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Ninomiya, H.: A study on factors influencing the consensus-building process in road improvement projects (in Japanese). J. Construct. Manage. 12, 261–272 (2005). https://doi.org/10.2208/procm.12.261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Arnstein, S.R.: A ladder of citizen participation. J. Am. Inst. Plann. 35(4), 216–224 (1969). https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Howard, N.: Drama Theory and Its Relation to Game Theory. Part 1 Dramatic Resolution vs. Rational Solution, Group Decision and Negotiation, vol. 3, pp. 187–206 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01384354

  9. Howard, N.: Drama Theory and Its Relation to Game Theory. Part 2 Formal Model of the Resolution Process, Group Decision and Negotiation, vol. 3, pp. 207–235 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01384355

  10. Kijima, K.: Invitation to Drama Theory New Developments in Multi-actor Complex Systems Models (in Japanese). Omusha (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Szczepanska, T., et al.: GAM on! Six ways to explore social complexity by combining games and agent-based models. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. (2022). https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2022.2050119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Hayashi, Y.: Road Construction and Stakeholders, A Record of Consensus-building, A Case Study of Yokkaichi Port Harbor Port Road Kasumi No. 4 Main Line (in Japanese). Akashi Shoten (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Nagata, Y., Munechika, M.: Introduction to Multivariate Analysis Methods (in Japanese). Science Inc. (2001)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Waseda University, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, 169-8555, Japan

    Ibu Ueno & Shingo Takahashi

Authors
  1. Ibu Ueno
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shingo Takahashi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Ibu Ueno or Shingo Takahashi .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Northeastern University, Boston, MA, USA

    Casper Harteveld

  2. University of Houston - Clear Lake, Houston, TX, USA

    Steven Sutherland

  3. Northeastern University, Boston, MA, USA

    Giovanni Troiano

  4. University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

    Heide Lukosch

  5. KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden

    Sebastiaan Meijer

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Ueno, I., Takahashi, S. (2023). Quantitative Analysis of Conflict-of-Interest Structures in Consensus-Building Process. In: Harteveld, C., Sutherland, S., Troiano, G., Lukosch, H., Meijer, S. (eds) Simulation and Gaming for Social Impact. ISAGA 2022. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 13622. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-37171-4_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-37171-4_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-37170-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-37171-4

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation