如何在集体多标准决策问题中考虑风险规避和风险承担方法?

IF 3.6 4区 管理学 Q2 MANAGEMENT Group Decision and Negotiation Pub Date : 2024-07-22 DOI:10.1007/s10726-024-09895-9
Siamak Kheybari, Mohammad Reza Mehrpour, Paul Bauer, Alessio Ishizaka
{"title":"如何在集体多标准决策问题中考虑风险规避和风险承担方法?","authors":"Siamak Kheybari, Mohammad Reza Mehrpour, Paul Bauer, Alessio Ishizaka","doi":"10.1007/s10726-024-09895-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>We propose an alternative decision-making methodology based on adopting a mixed risk-averse and risk-taking behavior, improving the objectivity of decision-making. We demonstrate the methodology by prioritizing Iranian tourism centers’ activity under pandemic conditions, providing insights to policymakers on those to keep active or reduce the activity of – hence, those worth developing ahead of future disease outbreaks. This research follows a three-step methodology. First, criteria for evaluation are identified and categorized into <i>tourist attractions</i>, <i>infrastructure</i>, and <i>healthcare</i> dimensions. Second, criterion weights are calculated based on expert opinions, collected using a best-worst method-based questionnaire. Third, tourism centers are evaluated by employing risk-averse and risk-taking best-worst methods. We identify <i>popular attractions</i>, <i>general services</i>, and <i>drugstore accessibility</i> as the primary indicators of <i>tourist attractions</i>, <i>infrastructure</i>, and <i>healthcare</i>, respectively. By clustering tourism centers using K-means algorithm, we find that, in order, the cities of Semnan, Kerman and Zahedan are the tourism centers most suited to staying active during disease outbreaks. For multi-criteria decision-making problems that rely on experts’ evaluations, the proposed methodology can improve the reliability of decision-making. The methodology and framework presented can be used to support various types of decision-making, including evaluation, ranking, selection or sorting.</p>","PeriodicalId":47553,"journal":{"name":"Group Decision and Negotiation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How Can Risk-Averse and Risk-Taking Approaches be Considered in a Group Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Problem?\",\"authors\":\"Siamak Kheybari, Mohammad Reza Mehrpour, Paul Bauer, Alessio Ishizaka\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10726-024-09895-9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>We propose an alternative decision-making methodology based on adopting a mixed risk-averse and risk-taking behavior, improving the objectivity of decision-making. We demonstrate the methodology by prioritizing Iranian tourism centers’ activity under pandemic conditions, providing insights to policymakers on those to keep active or reduce the activity of – hence, those worth developing ahead of future disease outbreaks. This research follows a three-step methodology. First, criteria for evaluation are identified and categorized into <i>tourist attractions</i>, <i>infrastructure</i>, and <i>healthcare</i> dimensions. Second, criterion weights are calculated based on expert opinions, collected using a best-worst method-based questionnaire. Third, tourism centers are evaluated by employing risk-averse and risk-taking best-worst methods. We identify <i>popular attractions</i>, <i>general services</i>, and <i>drugstore accessibility</i> as the primary indicators of <i>tourist attractions</i>, <i>infrastructure</i>, and <i>healthcare</i>, respectively. By clustering tourism centers using K-means algorithm, we find that, in order, the cities of Semnan, Kerman and Zahedan are the tourism centers most suited to staying active during disease outbreaks. For multi-criteria decision-making problems that rely on experts’ evaluations, the proposed methodology can improve the reliability of decision-making. The methodology and framework presented can be used to support various types of decision-making, including evaluation, ranking, selection or sorting.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47553,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Group Decision and Negotiation\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Group Decision and Negotiation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-024-09895-9\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Group Decision and Negotiation","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-024-09895-9","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

我们提出了一种基于风险规避和风险承担混合行为的替代决策方法,以提高决策的客观性。我们通过对伊朗旅游中心在大流行病条件下的活动进行优先排序来演示该方法,从而为政策制定者提供有关保持活跃或减少活跃的旅游中心的见解--因此,那些值得在未来疾病爆发前开发的旅游中心。本研究采用三步法。首先,确定评估标准,并将其分为旅游景点、基础设施和医疗保健三个方面。其次,根据专家意见计算标准权重,并采用最佳-最差法进行问卷调查。第三,采用风险规避和风险承担的最佳-最差法对旅游中心进行评估。我们将热门景点、一般服务和药店可达性分别确定为旅游景点、基础设施和医疗保健的主要指标。通过使用 K-means 算法对旅游中心进行聚类,我们发现塞姆南市、克尔曼市和扎黑丹市依次是最适合在疾病爆发期间保持活跃的旅游中心。对于依赖专家评价的多标准决策问题,所提出的方法可以提高决策的可靠性。所提出的方法和框架可用于支持各种类型的决策,包括评估、排序、选择或排序。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
How Can Risk-Averse and Risk-Taking Approaches be Considered in a Group Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Problem?

We propose an alternative decision-making methodology based on adopting a mixed risk-averse and risk-taking behavior, improving the objectivity of decision-making. We demonstrate the methodology by prioritizing Iranian tourism centers’ activity under pandemic conditions, providing insights to policymakers on those to keep active or reduce the activity of – hence, those worth developing ahead of future disease outbreaks. This research follows a three-step methodology. First, criteria for evaluation are identified and categorized into tourist attractions, infrastructure, and healthcare dimensions. Second, criterion weights are calculated based on expert opinions, collected using a best-worst method-based questionnaire. Third, tourism centers are evaluated by employing risk-averse and risk-taking best-worst methods. We identify popular attractions, general services, and drugstore accessibility as the primary indicators of tourist attractions, infrastructure, and healthcare, respectively. By clustering tourism centers using K-means algorithm, we find that, in order, the cities of Semnan, Kerman and Zahedan are the tourism centers most suited to staying active during disease outbreaks. For multi-criteria decision-making problems that rely on experts’ evaluations, the proposed methodology can improve the reliability of decision-making. The methodology and framework presented can be used to support various types of decision-making, including evaluation, ranking, selection or sorting.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
6.70%
发文量
32
期刊介绍: The idea underlying the journal, Group Decision and Negotiation, emerges from evolving, unifying approaches to group decision and negotiation processes. These processes are complex and self-organizing involving multiplayer, multicriteria, ill-structured, evolving, dynamic problems. Approaches include (1) computer group decision and negotiation support systems (GDNSS), (2) artificial intelligence and management science, (3) applied game theory, experiment and social choice, and (4) cognitive/behavioral sciences in group decision and negotiation. A number of research studies combine two or more of these fields. The journal provides a publication vehicle for theoretical and empirical research, and real-world applications and case studies. In defining the domain of group decision and negotiation, the term `group'' is interpreted to comprise all multiplayer contexts. Thus, organizational decision support systems providing organization-wide support are included. Group decision and negotiation refers to the whole process or flow of activities relevant to group decision and negotiation, not only to the final choice itself, e.g. scanning, communication and information sharing, problem definition (representation) and evolution, alternative generation and social-emotional interaction. Descriptive, normative and design viewpoints are of interest. Thus, Group Decision and Negotiation deals broadly with relation and coordination in group processes. Areas of application include intraorganizational coordination (as in operations management and integrated design, production, finance, marketing and distribution, e.g. as in new products and global coordination), computer supported collaborative work, labor-management negotiations, interorganizational negotiations, (business, government and nonprofits -- e.g. joint ventures), international (intercultural) negotiations, environmental negotiations, etc. The journal also covers developments of software f or group decision and negotiation.
期刊最新文献
GAN-Based Privacy-Preserving Intelligent Medical Consultation Decision-Making UCD–CE Integration: A Hybrid Approach to Reinforcing User Involvement in Systems Requirements Elicitation and Analysis Tasks Fostering Psychological Safety in Global Virtual Teams: The Role of Team-Based Interventions and Digital Reminder Nudges Advancing Content Synthesis in Macro-Task Crowdsourcing Facilitation Leveraging Natural Language Processing On the Combinatorial Acceptability Entropy Consensus Metric for Multi-Criteria Group Decisions
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1