Evolutional Attitude Based on Option Prioritization for Conflict Analysis of Urban Transport Planning in Pakistan

  • Sharafat Ali
  • Haiyan XuEmail author
  • Peng Xu
  • Waqas Ahmed


This paper constructs a dynamic conflict model that considers Decision Makers’ (DMs) evolutional attitude using the option prioritization. The proposed evolutional attitude approach is based on the framework of the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution (GMCR). Compared with the existing state-based preference, the option prioritization is a more convenient and efficient approach to analyze larger models with consideration of the evolutional attitude, which exists broadly in the evolutional conflicts in real-life. This study reveals how the evolutional attitude of a DM succeeds in the overall evolution of conflict. The analysis unfolds that DMs change their attitude(s) consequent upon the changes in DMs and options available to them as conflict evolves from one level to the next. The changes in attitude of DMs during dynamic conflict situation have substantial effects on the equilibrium outcomes of a conflict. The proposed evaluation attitude-based approach is employed to analyze the conflict between the Punjab Government (G) and Heritage Campaigner and the Public (P) in Pakistan that appeared due to the inappropriate design, planning, and construction of an urban transport system project in Lahore, Pakistan. The present study demonstrates the modeling procedure of a two-level evolutional attitude-based conflict analysis. The results of the stability analysis reveal that improper (negative) attitude may result in undesirable and unexpected consequences, such as project temporalities and delays. This research provides a foundation for future research in urban project planning that employs strategic ways to avoid disputes caused by DMs’ attitudes.


Urban planning infrastructure management heritage protection decision making evolutional attitudes conflict management evolutional GMCR 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



The authors appreciate financial support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (71471087, 71071076, and 61673209). We would like to thank Prof. Ginger Y. Ke, Faculty of Business Administration, Memorial University of Newfoundland St. John’s, NL, Canada, who provided great help for improving the English language of this research. Moreover, we extend our cordial thanks to the Editor and the anonymous referees for valuable suggestions and constructive comments which have helped significantly to enhance the quality of this paper.


  1. Aas C, Ladkin A, Fletcher J. (2005). Stakeholder collaboration and heritage management. Annals of Tourism Research 32(1): 28–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ali S, Xu H, Al-Amin A Q, Ahmad N (2019). Energy sources choice and environmental sustainability disputes: An evolutional graph model approach. Quality & Quantity 53(2): 561–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ali S, Xu H, Xu P, Theodora M (2018). Attitudinal analysis of Russia-Turkey conflict with Chinese role as a third-party intervention. In Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing 315: 167–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ashfaq A (2016). Orange Line Metro: Will the Supreme Court save Lahore’s heritage? Dawn. Retrieved from, September 2, 2018.
  5. Balling R J, Taber J T, Brown M R, Day K (1999). Multiobjective urban planning using genetic algorithm. Journal of Urban Planning and Development 125(2): 86–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. BOI. (2015). List of agreement: MoUs during visit of Chinese President. Board of Investment (BOI), Government of Pakistan, Islamabad. Retrieved from, August 4, 2017.Google Scholar
  7. Boone J. (2016). Lahore court backs heritage challenge over metro plans. The Guardian., September 2, 2018.
  8. Burby R J (2003). Making plans that matter: Citizen involvement and government action. Journal of the American Planning Association 69(1): 33–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chiao K-A, Zou X, Yang F (2007). Harmonious urban development and strategic transportation planning in China. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference of Chinese Transportation Professionals Congress 2007: Plan, Build, and Manage Transportation Infrastructures in China, Shanghai, China, May 21–22, 2007.Google Scholar
  10. Davies S R, Selin C, Gano G, Pereira  G (2012). Citizen engagement and urban change: Three case studies of material deliberation. Cities 29(6):351–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fang L, Hipel K W, Kilgour D M (1993). Interactive Decision Making: The Graph Model for Conflict Resolution. Wiley, New York, USA.Google Scholar
  12. Fraser N M, Hipel K W (1988). Decision support systems for conflict analysis. In M G Singh, D Salassa, K S Hindi (Eds). Managerial Decision Support Systems:13–21, Amsterdam, North Holland.Google Scholar
  13. Ghous M, Khalida K, Basit A, Hassan J (2015). Temporal Analysis of Urbanization and Resulting Local Weather Change: A case study of Lahore, Punjab, Pakistan. Sci.Int.(Lahore) 27(2): 1281–1287.Google Scholar
  14. Gobster P H (2001). Visions of nature: Conflict and compatibility in urban park restoration. Landscape and Urban Planning 56(1–2): 25–51.Google Scholar
  15. GoP (2016). Pakistan metro project. Lahore: Transport department. Government of the Punjab, Pakistan. Metro Project pdf, December 22, 2016Google Scholar
  16. GoPP (2017). Project brief of Lahore orange line metro train | Punjab Portal. Government of the Punjab, Lahore. Retrieved from, September 4, 2018.Google Scholar
  17. Hipel K W, Marc Kilgour D, Fang L, Peng X (John). (1997). The decision support system GMCR in environmental conflict management. Applied Mathematics and Computation 83(2–3): 117–152.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. Hipel K W, Jamshidi M M, Tien J M, White C C (2007). The future of systems, man and cybernetics: Application domains and research methods. 2007 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Montreal, Que., Canada, January 7–10, 2007.Google Scholar
  19. Hou Y, Jiang Y, Xu H (2015). Option Prioritization for Three-Level Preference in the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution:269-280. Outlooks and Insights on Group Decision and Negotiation. GDN 2015. In Kaminski B, Kersten G, Szapiro T (Eds). Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol 218. Springer, Cham.Google Scholar
  20. Inohara T, Hipel K W, Walker S (2007). Conflict analysis approaches for investigating attitudes and misperceptions in the War of 1812. Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering 16(2): 181–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. James P, Holden M, Mary L, Neilson L, Oakley C, Truter A, Wilmoth D (2013). Managing metropolises by negotiating mega-urban growth. In Institutional and Social Innovation for Sustainable Urban Development, New York, USA.Google Scholar
  22. Javed U (2016). Orange Line battles-Newspaper-DAWN.COM. Dawn. Retrieved from, August 29, 2016.
  23. Kassab M, Hipel K, Hegazy T (2006). Conflict resolution in construction disputes using the graph model. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 132(10): 1043–1052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kilgour D M, Hipel K W (2005). The graph model for conflict resolution: Past, present, and future. Group Decision and Negotiation 14(6): 441–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kovacs E, Fabok V, Kaloczkai A, Hansen H P (2016). Towards understanding and resolving the conflict related to the Eastern Imperial Eagle (Aquila heliaca) conservation with participatory management planning. Land Use Policy, 54: 158–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. LMA (2016) Lahore Metro Aur Aap: Issues. Retrieved from, December 25, 2016.
  27. MoF (2017). Pakistan Economic Survey 2016–17. Islamabad: Ministry of Finance (MoF), Government of Pakistan.Google Scholar
  28. MoF (2018). Pakistan Economic Survey 2017–18. Islamabad: Ministry of Finance (MoF), Government of Pakistan.Google Scholar
  29. Mohan D (2008). Mythologies, metro rail systems, and future urban transport. Economic and Political Weekly 43(4): 41–53.Google Scholar
  30. NESPAK (2015). Punjab Orange Line Metro Project (from Ali Town to Dera Gujjran), PC-I. Lahore: National Engineering Services Pakistan (Pvt.) Limited.Google Scholar
  31. PBS-GoP (2017). Punjab Development Statistics 2017. Bureau of Statistics, Planning & Development Department, Government of the Punjab, Lahore. Retrieved from Scholar
  32. Ploger J (2004). Strife: Urban planning and agonism. Planning Theory 3(1): 71–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. PMA (2015) Environmental Impact Assesment (EIA) Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project.Punjab Masstransit Authority (PMA), Government of the Punjab, Lahore, PakistanGoogle Scholar
  34. Rana I A, Bhatti S S (2018). Lahore, Pakistan-Urbanization challenges and opportunities. Cities 72: 348–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rubin J E (1990). Mathematical Logic: Applications and Theory. Sounders, Philadelphia, USA.Google Scholar
  36. Sajjad S H, Shirazi S A, Ahmed Khan M, Raza A (2009). Urbanization effects on temperature trends of Lahore during 1950–2007. International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management 1(3): 274–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Silva M M, Hipel K W, Kilgour D M, Costa A P C S (2017a). Urban planning in recife, Brazil: Evidence from a conflict analysis of the new recife project. Journal of Urban Planning and Development 143(3): 05017007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Silva M M, Kilgour D M, Hipel K W, Costa A P C S (2017b). Probabilistic composition of preferences in the graph model with application to the new recife project. Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction 9(3): 05017004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. SYSTRA. (2007). Lahore metro green and orange lines, Pakistan. Scholar
  40. Tam C M, Zeng S X, Tong T K L (2009). Conflict analysis in public engagement program of urban planning in Hong Kong. Journal of Urban Planning and Development 135(2):51–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. UNDESA (2011). Shanghai Manual: A Guide for Sustainable Urban Development in the 21st Century. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA): Shanghai.Google Scholar
  42. Walker S B, Hipel K W, Inohara T (2012). Dominating attitudes in the graph model for conflict resolution. Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering 21(3): 316–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Xu H, Xu P, Ali S (2017). Attitude analysis in process conflict for C919 aircraft manufacturing. Transactions of Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics 34(2): 115–124.Google Scholar
  44. Xu H, Hipel K W, Kilgour D M, Fang L (2018). Conflict Resolution Using the Graph Model: Strategic Interactions in Competition and Cooperation, Springer Nature, Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  45. Xu P, Xu H, He S. (2017). Evolutional analysis for the South China Sea dispute based on the two-stage attitude of Philippines. In M. Schoop & D. M. Kilgour (Eds). GDN 2017: Group Decision and Negotiation. A Socio-Technical Perspective 293:73–85.Google Scholar
  46. Xu P, Xu H, Ke G Y (2018). Integrating an option-oriented attitude analysis into investigating the degree of stabilities in conflict resolution. Group Decision and Negotiation 27(6): 981–1010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Yousefi S, Hipel K W, Hegazy T, Asce M (2010). Attitude-based negotiation methodology for the management of construction disputes. Journal of Management in Engineering 16(3): 114–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zahid L (2015). Orange Line — Lahore’s heritage under attack? Pakistan Today. Retrieved from, September 2, 2018.

Copyright information

© Systems Engineering Society of China and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Economics and ManagementNanjing University of Aeronautics and AstronauticsNanjingPR China

Personalised recommendations