Strategic Analysis of a Regulatory Conflict Using Dempster-Shafer Theory and AHP for Preference Elicitation

Dempster-Shafer Theory (DST) and the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) are integrated in order to elicit preference information from experts regarding decision makers (DMs) involved in a regulatory conflict. More precisely, DST is used for combining expert knowledge regarding preferences of a specifi...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of systems science and systems engineering 2019-08, Vol.28 (4), p.415-433
Main Authors: Silva, Maisa M., Hipel, Keith W., Kilgour, D. Marc, Costa, Ana Paula C. S.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Analytic hierarchy process
Complexity
Conflict resolution
Dempster-Shafer Method
Economic Theory/Quantitative Economics/Mathematical Methods
Engineering
Hierarchies
Operations Research/Decision Theory
Preferences
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Dempster-Shafer Theory (DST) and the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) are integrated in order to elicit preference information from experts regarding decision makers (DMs) involved in a regulatory conflict. More precisely, DST is used for combining expert knowledge regarding preferences of a specific DM(the regulatory body), and AHP is employed for ranking feasible states in the conflict for this same DM. In order to illustrate how this preference elicitation proposal can be conveniently implemented in practice within the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution (GMCR), it is applied to a real construction dispute located in the city of Ipojuca, Brazil. The conflict is modeled with three DMs: support, opposition, and the regulatory body. Results show that the new preference methodology possesses many inherent advantages including high flexibility, the ability to capture uncertainty or even ignorance about preferences, the possibility of combining expert knowledge with respect to missing preferences, and a substantial reduction in the number of pairwise comparisons of states required to express preference information.
ISSN:1004-3756
1861-9576
DOI:10.1007/s11518-019-5420-1