Advertisement

A Decision Aiding System for Predicting People‘s Scenario Preferences

  • Ray Wyatt
Chapter
  • 1.5k Downloads
Part of the Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography book series (LNGC)

Abstract

This chapter introduces a potentially profitable addition to the methods used by present-day Spatial Decision Support Systems (SDSS). It is best described as a Decision Aiding System (DAS). It predicts how different sorts of people will score different scenarios being evaluated for any problem. The first section speculates why most current SDSS researchers have, so far, failed to address this vital preference prediction part of the decision-support process. Subsequent sections then clarify the DAS’ mechanisms using a real-world spatial planning case study. The conclusion is reached that the DAS has exciting potential for increasing SDSS’ level of community consciousness, especially in the future when it morphs into an Internet-based application, thereby enabling it to ‘learn’ decisionmaking priorities from a broader cross-section of users.

Keywords

Analytic Hierarchy Process Normative Belief Control Belief Rational Choice Theory Criterion Score 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ajzen I (2005) Attitudes, personality and behavior, 2nd edn. Open University Press/McGraw-Hill, Milton-KeynesGoogle Scholar
  2. Dymond RL, Regmi B, Lohani VK, Dietz R (2004) Interdisciplinary web-enabled spatial decision support system for watershed management. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management 130(4):290–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Fishbein M, Ajzen I (1975) Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: an introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  4. Friend JK, Hickling A (1997) Planning under pressure: the strategic choice approach. Elsevier, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  5. Glasser W (1998) Choice theory: a new psychology of personal freedom. Harper Collins, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Green DP, Shapiro I (1994) Pathologies of rational choice theory: a critique of applications in political science. Yale University, New Haven, ConnecticutGoogle Scholar
  7. Gregory R, McDaniels T, Fields D (2001) Decision aiding, not dispute resolution: creating insights through structured environmental decisions. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 20(3):415–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Holloway HA, White CC (2003) Question selection for multi-attribute decisionaiding. European Journal of Operational Research 148(3):525–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kuchar JK, Walton DS, Matsumoto DM (2002) Integrating objective and subjective hazard risk in decision-aiding system design. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 75(2):207–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Makropoulos CK, Butler D, Maksimovic C (2003) Fuzzy logic spatial decision support system for urban water management. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management 129(1):69–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Maslow AH (1971) The farther reaches of human nature. Viking, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. McFadden D (1998) Rationality for economists? Department of Economics, University of California, Berkeley. Retrieved 2 December 2007, http://emlab.berkeley.edu/eml/nsf97/mcfadden.pdfGoogle Scholar
  13. Mennecke BE, Crossland MD, Killingsworth BL (2000) Is a map more than a picture? The role of SDSS technology, subject characteristics, and problem complexity on map reading and problem solving. Management Information Systems Quarterly 24 (4):601–629Google Scholar
  14. Nuttin J (1984) Motivation, planning and action. Lawrence Erlbaum/Leuven University Press, Hillside, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  15. Onstead JA (2002) SCOPE: a modification and application of the Forrester Model to the south coast of Santa Barbara County. M.A. thesis, Department of Geography, University of California, Santa Barbara, available at http://zenith.geog.ucsb.edu/title.htmlGoogle Scholar
  16. Saaty R (1996) The analytic hierarchy process and utility theory: ratio scales and interval scales. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on the Analytic Hierarchy Process, 12–15 July 1996, Simon Frasier University, British Columbia, Canada, pp 22–27Google Scholar
  17. Santa Barbara Region Economic Community Project (2003) South Coast Regional Impacts of Growth Study, Santa Barbara, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  18. Sengupta R, Lant C, Kraft S, Beaulieu J, Peterson W, Loftus T (2005) Modelling enrolment in the Conservation Reserve Program by using agents within spatial decision support systems: an example from southern Illinois. Environment and Planning B 32(6):821–834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Spada M, Bierlaire M, Liebling TM (2005) Decision-aiding methodology for the school bus routing and scheduling problem. Transportation Science 39(4):477–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Swedborg R (1990) Economics and sociology. Princeton University Press, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  21. Uran O, Janssen R (2003) Why are spatial decision support systems not used? Some experiences from the Netherlands. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 27(5):511–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Wyatt R (1989) Intelligent planning. Unwin Hyman, LondonGoogle Scholar
  23. Wyatt R (2003) Face diagrams. Journal of Machine Graphics and Vision 12(3):335–352Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ray Wyatt
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Resource Management and GeographyUniversity of MelbourneVictoriaAustralia

Personalised recommendations