College of Economics and Management, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing 211106, China.
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019 Oct 24;16(21):4088. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16214088.
Disputes are very common and pervasive in brownfield redevelopment projects, in which multiple stakeholders or decision-makers (DMs) strategically interact with each other with a conflict of interest. The preference information of DMs involved plays a vital role in identifying possible outcomes or resolutions for resolving a tough brownfield conflict. In this research, a novel preference ranking technique is purposefully proposed within the graph model for conflict resolution (GMCR) paradigm to effectively and accurately garner DMs' actual preferences, in which states are ranked according to their similarities and closeness to the most and least preferred states instead of subjective option statements or weights in traditional preference ranking methods. Finally, a real-world brownfield conflict which occurred in China is utilized to show how the proposed preference ranking method can be applied for conveniently obtaining the true preference information of DMs and strategically determining the equilibria of a given dispute. The case study indicates that the novel preference elicitation approach is more objective and reasonable than the traditional option prioritization method. Moreover, there exists an equilibrium which can provide strategic advice and meaningful insights for addressing the brownfield conflict.
争议在棕地再开发项目中非常普遍和普遍，其中多个利益相关者或决策者 (DM) 出于利益冲突而进行战略性互动。涉及的 DM 的偏好信息在确定可能的结果或解决方案以解决棘手的棕地冲突方面起着至关重要的作用。在这项研究中，在解决冲突的图模型 (GMCR) 范例中专门提出了一种新颖的偏好排序技术，以有效地和准确地收集 DM 的实际偏好，其中根据它们与最和最不喜欢的状态的相似性和接近程度对状态进行排名，而不是在传统的偏好排序方法中使用主观的选项陈述或权重。最后，利用在中国发生的一个真实的棕地冲突来展示如何应用所提出的偏好排序方法来方便地获取 DM 的真实偏好信息，并战略性地确定给定争议的均衡。案例研究表明，新的偏好 elicitation 方法比传统的选项优先级方法更客观和合理。此外，存在一个均衡，可以为解决棕地冲突提供战略建议和有意义的见解。
