Dominating attitudes in the graph model for conflict resolution

Abstract

A formal methodology for analyzing the importance of weighing a decision maker℉s attitudes in a conflict is introduced and applied to the problem of negotiating a fair transfer of a brownfield property. A decision maker℉s attitudes are expressed in his consideration of his own preferences, as well as those of his opponents. Dominating attitudes are used to suggest that in a circumstance in which a decision maker takes into account multiple perspectives due to his attitudes, he may favor one perspective more heavily. The analysis of a brownfield acquisition conflict illustrates the types of insights that this methodology reveals.

Keywords

Conflict analysis / attitudes / preferences / graph model for conflict resolution / dominating attitudes / brownfields

References

[1] Al-Mutairi M.S., Hipel K.W., Kamel M.S.. Fuzzy preferences in conflicts. Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering, 2008, 17(3): 257-276.

[2] Bashar, Md. A., Kilgour, D.M. & Hipel, K.W. (to appear 2012). Fuzzy preferences in the graph model for conflict resolution. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems

[3] Benchekouroun H., Gaudet A.. On the profitability of production perturbations in a dynamic natural resource oligopoly. Journal of Economic Dynamics & Control, 2003, 27: 1237-1252.

[4] Benchekouroun H., Van Long N.. Transboundary fisheries: a differential game model. Economica, 2002, 69: 207-221.

[5] Bernath Walker S. B., Boutilier T., Hipel K.W.. Systems management study of a private brownfield renovation. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 2010, 136(3): 249-260.

[6] Bernath Walker S., Inohara T., Hipel K.W.. Strategic decision making for improved environmental security: coalitions and attitudes. Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering, 2009, 18(4): 461-476.

[7] Fang L., Hipel K.W., Kilgour D.M.. Interactive Decision Making: The Graph Model for Conflict Resolution, 1993, New York: Wiley

[8] Fang L., Hipel K.W., Kilgour D.M., Peng X.. A decision support system for interactive decision making, Part 1: Model formulation. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part C, 2003, SMC-33(1): 42-55.

[9] Fang L., Hipel K.W., Kilgour D.M., Peng X.. A decision support system for interactive decision making, Part 2: Analysis and output interpretation. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part C, 2003, SMC-33(1): 56-66.

[10] Fraser N.M., Hipel K.W.. Conflict Analysis: Models and Resolutions, 1984, New York: North- Holland.

[11] Green K.C.. Forecasting decisions in conflict situations: a comparison of game theory, role-playing, and unaided judgement. International Journal of Forecasting, 2002, 18: 319-395.

[12] Green K.C.. Game theory, simulated interaction, and unaided judgement for forecasting decisions in conflicts: Further evidence. International Journal of Forecasting, 2005, 21: 463-472.

[13] Green K.C., Armstrong J. S.. Structured analogies for forecasting. International Journal of Forecasting, 2007, 23: 365-376.

[14] Greenberg M., Lawrie K., Solitaire L., Duncan L.. Brownfields, toads, and the struggle for neighbourhood redevelopment. Urban Affairs Review, 2000, 35(5): 717-733.

[15] Greenberg M., Lewis M.J.. Brownfields redevelopment, preferences and public involvement: a case study of an ethnically mixed neighbourhood. Urban Studies, 2000, 37(13): 2501-2514.

[16] Hamouda L., Kilgour D.M., Hipel K.W.. Strength of preference in the graph model for conflict resolution. Group Decision and Negotiation, 2005, 13(5): 449-462.

[17] Hipel K.W.. Conflict Resolution. 2 Vols, 2009, Oxford: EOLSS Publishers

[18] Hipel, K.W. & Bernath Walker, S. (2012). Brownfield redevelopment. The Berkshire Encyclopedia of Sustainability, Volume 5 of 10 on Ecosystem Management and Sustainability

[19] Hipel K.W., Fang L., Kilgour D.M.. Decision support systems in water resources and environmental management. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 2008, 13(9): 761-770.

[20] Hipel K.W., Kilgour D.M., Bashar M.A.. Fuzzy preferences in multiple participant decision making. Scientia Iranica, Transactions D: Computer Science & Engineering and Electrical Engineering, special publication dedicated to the lifelong achievements of Professor Lotfi A. Zadeh, 2011, 18(3D1): 627-638.

[21] Hipel K.W., Kilgour D.M., Fang L.. Cochran J.J., Cox L.A., Keskinocak P., Kharoufeh J.P., Smith J.C.. The Graph Model for Conflict Resolution. Wiley Encyclopedia of Operations Research and Management Science, 3, 2011, New York: Wiley 2099-2111.

[22] Howard N.. Paradoxes of Reality: Theory of Metagames and Political Behaviour, 1971, Cambridge: MIT Press

[23] Howard N.. Dramatic resolution vs. rational solution. Group Decision and Negotiation, 1994, 3: 187-206.

[24] Howard N.. Drama theory and its relation to game theory part 2: formal model of the resolution process. Group Decision and Negotiation, 1994, 3: 207-235.

[25] Inohara T., Hipel K.W.. Coalition analysis in the graph model for conflict resolution. Systems Engineering, 2008, 11(4): 343-359.

[26] Inohara T., Hipel K.W.. Interrelationships among noncooperative and coalition stability concepts. Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering, 2008, 17: 1-29.

[27] Inohara T., Hipel K.W., Walker S.. Conflict analysis approaches for investigating attitudes and misperceptions in the War of 1812. Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering, 2007, 16: 181-201.

[28] Kilgour D.M., Hipel K.W., Fang L., Peng X.. Coalition analysis in group decision and support. Group Decision and Negotiation, 2001, 10(2): 159-175.

[29] Li K.W., Hipel K.W., Kilgour D.M., Fang L.. Preference uncertainty in the graph model for conflict resolution. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part A: Systems and Humans, 2004, 34(4): 507-520.

[30] Li K.W., Kilgour D.M., Hipel K.W.. Status quo analysis in the graph model for conflict resolution. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 2005, 56: 699-707.

[31] Nash J.F.. Equilibrium points in n-player games. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 1950, 36(1): 48-49.

[32] Nash J.F.. Non-cooperative games. Annals of Mathematics, 1951, 54(2): 286-295.

[33] Obeidi A., Hipel K.W., Kilgour D.M.. The role of emotions in envisioning outcomes in conflict analysis. Group Decision and Negotiation, 2005, 14: 481-500.

[34] Riley P.. Engineering development and environmental law. IEEE Engineering Management Journal, 2000, 10(2): 85-87.

[35] US EPA. Brownfields Economic Redevelopment Initiative, 1997, Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency, Solid Waste and Emergency Response

[36] US EPA. Available Funding Mechanisms, 2010, Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency, Solid Waste and Emergency Response

[37] Von Neumann J., Morgenstern O.. Theories of Games and Economic Behaviour, 1944, Princeton: Princeton University Press

[38] Walker, S., Boutilier, T. & Hipel, K.W. (2007). Systems management study of a private brownfield renovation, refereed extended abstract. In: Kersten GE, Rios J & Chen E (eds.), Proceedings of the international conference on Group Decision and Negotiation 2007: 95–97, within the invited session on Group Decision Making in Brownfield Redevelopment, La Tour des Voyageurs, Mont Tremblant, Quebec, Canada, May 14–17, 2007

[39] Wang M., Hipel K.W., Fraser N.M.. Solution concepts in hypergames. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 1989, 34: 147-171.

[40] Xu H., Hipel K.W., Kilgour D.M.. Matrix representation of solution concepts in multiple decision maker graph models. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part A: Systems and Humans, 2009, 39(1): 96-108.

[41] Xu H., Kilgour D.M., Hipel K.W., McBean E.A.. Matrix representation of conflict resolution with hybrid preference in colored graphs. Applied Mathematical Modelling, accepted for publication on March, 2012, 3: 2012

[42] Zeng D.-Z., Fang L., Hipel K.W., Kilgour D.M.. Policy equilibrium and generalized metarationalities for multiple decision-maker conflicts. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part A, Systems and Humans, 2007, 37(4): 456-463.