Abstract
A definition of grey preference, based on grey numbers, is incorporated into a multiple decision-maker graph model for conflict resolution, to model human behaviour in a strategic conflict featuring uncertainty—in this case, a dispute arising over brownfield redevelopment. To analyse a strategic conflict, the relative preferences of each decision maker over all feasible states are required for a stability analysis. However, because of incomplete information, cognitive limitations of decision makers, the interplay of stakeholders and sheer complexity, it can be hard to capture accurately the preferences of all decision makers across all possible scenarios or states. Moreover, analysis is difficult when more than two decision makers are involved, as coordinated moves against a focal decision maker must be taken into account when identifying stable states. In this paper, a grey preference structure is used to represent decision makers’ uncertain preferences in a graph model. Then two types of grey stability (grey Nash stability and grey sequential stability) and corresponding equilibria are calculated for a model of a brownfield redevelopment conflict that occurred in Kitchener, Ontario, Canada.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bashar MA, Kilgour DM, Hipel KW (2010) Fuzzy preferences in brownfield redevelopment conflicts. In: Proceedings of water 2010: hydrology, hydraulics and water resources in an uncertain environment—10th symposium on stochastic aydraulics and 5th international conference on water resources and environment research. Quebec City
Bashar MA, Kilgour DM, Hipel KW (2012) Fuzzy preferences in the graph model for conflict resolution. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 20(4):760–770
Ben-Haim Y, Hipel KW (2002) The graph model for conflict resolution with information-gap uncertainty in preferences. Appl Math Comput 126(2):319–340
Bernath Walker S, Boutilier T, Hipel KW (2010) Systems management study of a private brownfield renovation. J Urban Plan Dev 136(3):249–260
Bernath Walker S, Hipel KW, Inohara T (2012) Dominating attitudes in the graph model for conflict resolution. J Syst Sci Syst Eng 21(3):316–336
Checkland P (1981) Systems thinking, systems practice. J. Wiley, New York
Chen TY (2011) A multimeasure approach to optimism and pessimism in multiple criteria decision analysis based on atanassov fuzzy sets. Expert Syst Appl 38(10):12,569–12,584
Deng JL (1989) Introduction to grey system theory. J Grey Syst 1(1):1–24
Fang L, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM (1993) Interactive decision making: the graph model for conflict resolution. Wiley, New York
Fang L, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM, Peng X (2003) A decision support system for interactive decision making-part I: model formulation-part II: analysis and output interpretation. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part C: Appl Rev 33(1):42–66
Fraser NM, Hipel KW (1979) Solving complex conflicts. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 9(12):805–816
Fraser NM, Hipel KW (1984) Conflict analysis: models and resolutions. North Holland, New York
Greco S, Matarazzo B, Slowinski R (2001) Rough sets theory for multicriteria decision analysis. Eur J Oper Res 129(1):1–47
Hamouda L, Kilgour DM, Hipel KW (2004) Strength of preference in the graph model for conflict resolution. Group Decis Negot 13(5):449–462
Hipel KW, Kilgour DM, Fang L, Peng XJ (1997) The decision support system GMCR in environmental conflict management. Appl Math Comput 83(2):117–152
Hipel KW (2009) Conflict resolution—volume 1. Eolss Publisher, Oxford
Hipel KW, Bernath Walker S (2012) Brownfield redevelopment, vol 5. Berkshire Publishing, Barrington
Howard N (1971) Paradoxes of rationality: theory of metagames and political behavior. MIT Press, Cambridge
Kilgour DM, Hipel KW (2005) The graph model for conflict resolution: past, present, and future. Group Decis Negot 14(6):441–460
Kilgour DM, Eden C (2010) Handbook of group decision and negotiation, vol 4. Springer, Dordrecht
Kuang H, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM, Bashar MA (2013) A case study of grey-based preference in a graph model for conflict resolution with two decision makers. In: 2013 IEEE international conference on systems, man, and cybernetics. Manchester, United Kingdom, pp 2037–2041
Kuang H, Bashar MA, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM (2015a) Grey-based preference in a graph model for conflict resolution with multiple decision makers. In: IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems, IEEE. doi:10.1109/TSMC.2014.2387096
Kuang H, Kilgour DM, Hipel KW (2015b) Grey-based PROMETHEE II with application to evaluation of source water protection strategies. Inf Sci 294:376–389
Li KW, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM, Fang L (2004) Preference uncertainty in the graph model for conflict resolution. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part A: Syst Humans 34(4):507–520
Liu S, Forrest JYL (2010) Grey systems: theory and applications. Springer, Berlin
McCarthy L (2002) The brownfield dual land-use policy challenge: reducing barriers to private redevelopment while connecting reuse to broader community goals. Land Use Policy 19(4):287–296
Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (2014) Brownfields redevelopment. https://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/brownfields-redevelopment
Nash JF (1950) Equilibrium points in n-person games. Proc Natl Acad Sci 36(1):48–49
Nijkamp P, Rodenburg CA, Wagtendonk AJ (2002) Success factors for sustainable urban brownfield development: a comparative case study approach to polluted sites. Ecol Econ 40(2):235–252
Radford KJ (1988) Strategic and tactical decisions. Springer, New York
Scheier MF, Carver CS (1985) Optimism, coping, and health: assessment and implications of generalized outcome expectancies. Health Psychol 4(3):219–249
Sousa CAD (2002) Brownfield redevelopment in toronto: an examination of past trends and future prospects. Land Use Policy 19(4):297–309
Sousa CAD (2003) Turning brownfields into green space in the City of Toronto. Landsc Urban Plan 62(4):181–198
Tedd P, Charles J, Driscoll R (2001) Sustainable brownfield re-development—risk management. Eng Geol 60(1–4):333–339
Thomas MR (2002) A GIS-based decision support system for brownfield redevelopment. Landsc Urban Plan 58(1):7–23
Thornton G, Franz M, Edwards D, Pahlen G, Nathanail P (2007) The challenge of sustainability: incentives for brownfield regeneration in europe. Environ Sci Policy 10(2):116–134
United States Environmental Protection Agency (2014) Brownfields and land revitalization. http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/
Xu H, Kilgour DM, Hipel KW (2011) Matrix representation of conflict resolution in multiple-decision-maker graph models with preference uncertainty. Group Decis Negot 20(6):755–779
Yager RR (1995) An approach to ordinal decision making. Int J Approx Reason 12(3–4):237–261
Yang Y, John R (2012) Grey sets and greyness. Inf Sci 185(1):249–264
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments that improved the quality of the paper. Hanbin Kuang was supported by the National Science Foundation for Distinguished Young Scholars of China under Grants No. 71325002 and 61225012; the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant No. 71071028; and the Fundamental Research Funds for State Key Laboratory of Synthetical Automation for Process Industries under Grant No. 2013ZCX11. Finally, we thank Prof. J. Kilgour and C. Hipel, who assisted in editing this manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kuang, H., Bashar, M.A., Kilgour, D.M. et al. Strategic analysis of a brownfield revitalization conflict using the grey-based graph model for conflict resolution. EURO J Decis Process 3, 219–248 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40070-015-0042-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40070-015-0042-4