Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Large-group risk dynamic emergency decision method based on the dual influence of preference transfer and risk preference

  • Focus
  • Published:
Soft Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Decision-makers (DMs) usually encounter the problem of preference transfer when making decisions about emergencies in a complex environment. We propose a new method for dynamic emergency decision-making for large-group risk based on cumulative prospect theory (CPT). First, the preference judgment matrix is used to aggregate the DMs’ preferences in different event states. Second, because of the complexity of the number of decisions proposed by a large group, a clustering method is used to cluster the preferences of the decision-making group and obtain a number of different aggregations with corresponding weights. Then, given that the risk preferences of the DMs affect the decision result, CPT is used to calculate the overall outlook value for large-group decision-making. Finally, DMs need to adjust the preference judgment matrix according to changes in event states. After several stages of adjustment, the Markov chain for the current development state and the DMs’ preference transfer matrix are obtained. The optimal scheme for the current state is given as a combination of the preference transfer matrix and the overall outlook value for the large group. Using this method, DMs can obtain the best scheme for different states in advance and make an emergency plan to reduce the risk of preference transfer. A case study is used to illustrate the rationality and effectiveness of the proposed method.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aczel J, Saaty TL (1983) Procedures for synthesizing ratio judgements. J Math Psychol 27(1):93–102

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Bell DE (1982) Regret in decision making under uncertainty. Oper Res 30(5):961–981

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell DE (1985) Disappointment in decision making under uncertainty. Oper Res 33(1):1–27

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Bocquého G, Jacquet F, Reynaud A (2014) Expected utility or prospect theory maximisers? assessing farmers’ risk behaviour from field-experiment data. Eur Rev Agric Econ 41(1):135–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen J, Zhong PA, Xu B et al (2015) Risk analysis for real-time flood control operation of a reservoir. J Water Resour Plan Manag 141(8):1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fan ZP, Li YH, Zhang Y (2015) Generating project risk response strategies based on CBR: a case study. Expert Syst Appl 42(6):2870–2883

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gao H, Barbier G, Goolsby R et al (2011) Harnessing the crowdsourcing power of social media for disaster relief. IEEE Intell Syst 26(3):10–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gao J, Li M, Liu H (2015) Generalized ordered weighted utility averaging-hyperbolic absolute risk aversion operators and their applications to group decision making. Eur J Oper Res 243(1):258–270

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Han B, Zank H (2009) Additive utility in prospect theory. Manag Sci 55(5):863–873

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harsanyi JC (1955) Cardinal welfare, individualistic ethics, and interpersonal comparisons of utility. J Polit Econ 63(4):309–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu J, Yang L (2011) Dynamic stochastic multi-criteria decision making method based on cumulative prospect theory and set pair analysis. Sys Eng Procedia 1(1):432–439

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiang P (2011) Emergency management of emergencies. National School of Administration Press, Beijing

    Google Scholar 

  • Jou RC, Chen KH (2013) An application of cumulative prospect theory to freeway drivers route choice behaviours. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract 49:123–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D, Tversky AN (1979) Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47(2):263–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D, Tversky A (1992) Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty. J Risk Uncertain 5(4):297–323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krohling RA, Souza TTM (2011) Two examples of application of TOPSIS to decision making problems. Salesian J Inf Syst 8:31–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu Y, Fan ZP, Zhang Y (2014) Risk decision analysis in emergency response: a method based on cumulative prospect theory. Comput Oper Res 42(2):75–82

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Loomes G, Sugden R (1982) Regret theory: an alternative theory of rational choice under uncertainty. Econ J 92:805–824

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loomes G, Sugden R (1986) Disappointment and dynamic consistency in choice under uncertainty. Rev Econ Stud 53(2):271–282

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty TL (1980) Multicriteria decision making: the analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt U, Zank H (2002) Risk aversion in cumulative prospect theory. Gen Inf 54(1):208–216

    Google Scholar 

  • Shen H, Zhao J, Huang WW (2008) Mission-critical group decision-making: solving the problem of decision preference change in group decision-making using Markov chain model. J Glob Inf Manag 16(2):35–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shi Y, Cui X, Li D (2015) Discrete-time behavioral portfolio selection under cumulative prospect theory. J Econ Dyn Control 61:283–302

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Tanino T (1984) Fuzzy preference orderings in group decision making. Fuzzy Sets Syst 12:117–131

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Wang L, Zhang ZX, Wang YM (2015) A prospect theory-based interval dynamic reference point method for emergency decision making. Expert Syst Appl 42(23):9379–9388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu Z, Da Q (2001) The ranking method of complementary judgement matrix based on reciprocal judgment matrix of three kinds. J Southeast Univ 1(6):97–99

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu X, Zhang L, Chen X (2012) Cluster grouping method based on attribute binary relation under fuzzy preference. Syst Eng Electron 34(11):2312–2317

    Google Scholar 

  • Yager RR, Rybalov A (1996) Uninorm aggregation operators. Fuzzy Sets Syst 80(1):111–120

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Zook M, Graham M, Shelton T et al (2010) Volunteered geographic information and crowdsourcing disaster relief: a case study of the Haitian earthquake. World Medical Health Policy 2(2):7–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the editors and anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and suggestions. This study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation in China (Nos. 71671189, 71790615, 71431006), Innovation-driven Program of Central South University (2015CX010), Mobile E-business Collaborative Innovation Center of in Hunan Province and Key Laboratory of Hunan Province for mobile business intelligence, Key program for Financial Research Institute Foundation of Wenzhou University.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Hunan University of Commerce, Changsha, 410205, China

    Bin Pan

  2. School of Business, Central South University, Changsha, 410083, China

    Xuanhua Xu & Yushan Yang

Authors
  1. Xuanhua Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bin Pan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yushan Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bin Pan.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

We declare that we have no financial and personal relationships with other people or organizations that can inappropriately influence our work, there is no professional or other personal interest of any nature or kind in any product, service and/or company that could be construed as influencing the position presented in, or the review of, the manuscript entitled.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Communicated by A. Genovese, G. Bruno.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Xu, X., Pan, B. & Yang, Y. Large-group risk dynamic emergency decision method based on the dual influence of preference transfer and risk preference. Soft Comput 22, 7479–7490 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-018-3387-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-018-3387-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation