Measuring conflicts using cardinal ranking: an application to decision analytic conflict evaluations (Q1738979): Difference between revisions

From MaRDI portal
Set OpenAlex properties.
ReferenceBot (talk | contribs)
Changed an Item
 
Property / cites work
 
Property / cites work: A framework for participatory decision support using Pareto frontier visualization, goal identification and arbitration / rank
 
Normal rank
Property / cites work
 
Property / cites work: The use of multi-criteria decision analysis to support the search for less conflicting policy options in a multi-actor context: case study / rank
 
Normal rank
Property / cites work
 
Property / cites work: Preference disaggregation: 20 years of MCDA experience. / rank
 
Normal rank
Property / cites work
 
Property / cites work: An aggregation/disaggregation approach to obtain robust conclusions with ELECTRE TRI / rank
 
Normal rank
Property / cites work
 
Property / cites work: A linear programming approach for learning non-monotonic additive value functions in multiple criteria decision aiding / rank
 
Normal rank
Property / cites work
 
Property / cites work: Ordinal regression revisited: Multiple criteria ranking using a set of additive value functions / rank
 
Normal rank
Property / cites work
 
Property / cites work: Measurable Multiattribute Value Functions / rank
 
Normal rank
Property / cites work
 
Property / cites work: Q3392475 / rank
 
Normal rank
Property / cites work
 
Property / cites work: Ranking with Partial Information: A Method and an Application / rank
 
Normal rank
Property / cites work
 
Property / cites work: Decision Quality Using Ranked Attribute Weights / rank
 
Normal rank
Property / cites work
 
Property / cites work: Augmenting Ordinal Methods of Attribute Weight Approximation / rank
 
Normal rank
Property / cites work
 
Property / cites work: Multiple criteria decision analysis. State of the art surveys / rank
 
Normal rank
Property / cites work
 
Property / cites work: MACBETH — An interactive path towards the construction of cardinal value functions / rank
 
Normal rank
Property / cites work
 
Property / cites work: Q5692457 / rank
 
Normal rank

Latest revision as of 01:06, 19 July 2024

scientific article
Language Label Description Also known as
English
Measuring conflicts using cardinal ranking: an application to decision analytic conflict evaluations
scientific article

    Statements

    Measuring conflicts using cardinal ranking: an application to decision analytic conflict evaluations (English)
    0 references
    0 references
    0 references
    0 references
    0 references
    24 April 2019
    0 references
    Summary: One of the core complexities involved in evaluating decision alternatives in the area of public decision-making is to deal with conflicts. The stakeholders affected by and involved in the decision often have conflicting preferences regarding the actions under consideration. For an executive authority, these differences of opinion can be problematic, during both implementation and communication, even though the decision is rational with respect to an attribute set perceived to represent social welfare. It is therefore important to involve the stakeholders in the process and to get an understanding of their preferences. Otherwise, the stakeholder disagreement can lead to costly conflicts. One way of approaching this problem is to provide means for comprehensive, yet effective stakeholder preference elicitation methods, where the stakeholders can state their preferences with respect to actions part of the current agenda of a government. In this paper we contribute two supporting methods: (i) an application of the cardinal ranking (CAR) method for preference elicitation for conflict evaluations and (ii) two conflict indices for measuring stakeholder conflicts. The application of the CAR method utilizes a {\textit do nothing} alternative to differentiate between positive and negative actions. The elicited preferences can then be used as input to the two conflict indices indicating the level of conflict within a stakeholder group or between two stakeholder groups. The contributed methods are demonstrated in a real-life example carried out in the municipality of Upplands Väsby, Sweden. We show how a questionnaire can be used to elicit preferences with CAR and how the indices can be used to semantically describe the level of consensus and conflict regarding a certain attribute. As such, we show how the methods can provide decision aid in the clarification of controversies.
    0 references
    0 references
    0 references
    0 references

    Identifiers